discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Swift is now open source (Apache 2 License)


From: Ivan Vučica
Subject: Re: Swift is now open source (Apache 2 License)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 21:43:04 +0000

Once we use git, it is easy to move again.


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015, 21:10 Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Luboš Doležel <lubos@dolezel.info> wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 08:22 PM, Maxthon Chan wrote:
>> On their side, I’m gonna go there and propose the option of using an
>> existing Foundation reimplementation in place of the version they
>> packed.
>
> Over the time that I've been analyzing OS X, how things work deep down,
> I came to the conclusion that developers at Apple must be *really* very
> bored.
>
> While on Linux, one can see the developers are lazy, strive for a clean
> and simple design, Apple's developers probably dream about what crazy
> complicated project of reimplementing something that has already been
> done to start next.
>
> A nice example are workqueues as used by GCD (libdispatch). They
> implemented on top of a portable pthread pool. Then they thought, hey,
> why don't we save us making maybe 1 system call, get the kernel
> needlessly involved in managing the thread pool and feel absolutely
> fantastic about it.
>
> Another example. Pthread locking primitives. On Linux, there is a single
> simple system call named futex. All the mutexes, conditions, r/w locks
> etc. are built on top of that.
> In Apple, they thought this would be way too simple. So instead, they
> introduced a dozen of system calls (psynch_*) with gazillions of
> parameters and very strange semantics. When I read through the
> implementation in XNU, I wonder why did someone torture himself so much.
>
> So when I see Apple redoing something, I'm just not surprised anymore.
> These folks don't want easy and simple. Because then they would have
> nothing to do and would get fired.
>
>> On our side, maybe it is time to scrap our CoreBase and reimplement
>> Base on top Apple’s CoreFoundation.
>
> a) That's a lot of work someone would have to do. And to little benefit,
> I'm afraid.
> b) Makes you depend on APSL'd code.

Indeed

> I'd rather suggest that GNUstep finally moves to Git so that I can
> contribute back more easily. Right now, it's easier for me to commit
> into my own gnustep-corebase fork on GitHub then to commit into SVN,
> wait for it to bubble to the Git mirror and merge it into the Darling fork.

In process.  I am waiting on the guys on savannah to create the
relevant repos.   One issue which already comes to mind is that in
order to have multiple repos I have had to make a special request on
Savannah and it has taken them a week to respond to the first one.

I believe we may want to review our ideas about moving to savannah
because of this.  On github or even when I use gitlab (on my own
server) it allows me to just add repos when I need them.

> --
> Luboš Doležel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep


GC
--
Gregory Casamento
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
http://ind.ie/phoenix/

_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]