Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort

[gepr]

Perrone Alessandro writes:
 > >2.  Objectives (Wish list) in no particular order
 > >a. Swarm should be simple to install on any 'standard' GNUstep or MacOS X
 > >system.  Other than GNUstep the only other non-standard item should be
 > >hdf5 if it is required.
[...]
 > >b.  Being totally Gatesophobic, I have no idea how this plays on Windoze.
 > >Is there a workable Cygwin/GNUstep installation available?
 > 
 > Our main problem is to do a GnuStep-Swarm for OsX. Once it'll be 
 > ready, we'll think about a WIndoze/Linux version.
 > 
 > >c.  The above scenario is based on a possibly unfounded belief that
 > >GNUstep and MacOS X/Cocoa have a large degree of source code compatability
 > >at the level we would require for Swarm.  Any comments?

So, it seems to me that the very first tasks are to 
o test out a minimal swarm application that calls GNUStep infrastructure,
o try it against CygWin (the faq says it "should" work),
o try replacing some of swarm's basic infrastructure with GNUStep
  (e.g.  a graph widget -- which should give hints into using OSX
  interfaces -- or a peripheral collection like "Set")

The lessons learned during those steps should tell us where we can 
go from there.

 > >d.  Method functions are incompatable with the above objectives as well as
 > >being abhorrent to any OO believer.  They should be given a decent burial.

I have to take issue with this one. [grin] ... not that method
functions are abhorrent to any OO believer, which might be true.  I
take issue with the opinion that they should be gone.  I'm catholic in
my beliefs. [grin] Dynamism should be used where appropriate and
... static-ism should be used where appropriate.  If the programmer or
compiler *can* know for sure that a method will always be called in a
certain way on a particular object and that target will never change,
then it should be bound static.  Of course, i'm lazy like the rest of
the world; so, I'd prefer to write [bob dance]; and have the compiler
understand _i_Person__dance();

But, where I can't get that, there's nothing wrong with telling the
compiler precisely what to do.  In fact, this is why I like ObjC
better than the "safer" languages.

Unless, of course, I would have to argue with the GCC guys about
patching their code, which I don't want to do. [grin]

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 831.335.4950                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 831.247.7901                               http://www.tempusdictum.com


                  ==================================
   Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
   to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
   [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
   with "help" in the body of the message.