Re: Mac OS-compatible ports (was: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion))

[Carsten Mattner]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:47 AM, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 2011/12/31, at 22:22, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>
>> I agree with your statement, but we're not "pushing" the NS port only
>> because it's for GNUstep.  It's quite usable on Mac OS X.  I said that
>> "in its defense" it is compatible with GNUstep by using the Cocoa API,
>> which your port isn't.  So, to make the current situation clear, the
>> Mac OS port choice is between:
>>
>> 1) NS port: Cocoa API, works on Mac OS X with some issues, compatible
>> with GNUstep and can work there (it needs lots of work though).  Apple
>> has repeatedly stated Cocoa is the preferred API for Mac OS X
>> developers, especially for new software.
>>
>> 2) your Carbon-based port: works on Mac OS X well, can't be compatible
>> with GNUstep.  Apple has not been clear about Carbon's future, even
>> though Carbon seems to be well entrenched at this point.
>
> As I've been repeatedly saying, the Mac port uses Cocoa for its
> GUI implementation.  If you call the Mac port Carbon-based, lots
> of the applications including those bundled with Mac OS X such as
> Safari.app should also be called Carbon-based.
>
> (snip)
>
>> Given those choices, the NS port seems like the best choice for
>> inclusion in GNU Emacs, which is the status quo.  Are any of the facts
>> I've presented inaccurate?
>
> I'm not saying about the inclusion.  I'm just correcting negative
> statements with respect to the Mac port, many of which are made
> with wrong understanding about the actual situation of Mac OS X
> development, or even not based on the actual use.
>
>                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
>                               address@hidden

Can we please update the emacs wiki with a table for reference
comparing the different OS X ports?