Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

[Tim Harrison]

Hey Adam.

Adam Fedor wrote:

> Well, one of the major reasons is that to really work, frameworks need 
> to be properly supported by the compiler AND the linker. And I doubt we 
> are going to get those people to change anytime soon.


Considering I don't understand the compilation portion of how frameworks 
work, this is probably going to come out all wrong, but...

Couldn't we use Apple's offer of Objective-C++ to also slip in some 
support for frameworks?  Have the GCC Steering Committee agreed to 
accept the Apple offer (I certainly would hope so)?  Or is it 
specifically a linking issue?

I think it's rather odd that people would be resisting adding features 
like that, considering the ever increasing popularity of Mac OS X.  I 
think Objective-C has some massive potential to become a more dominant 
language, and getting a boost from the compilation and linking people 
would be a great advantage.

Anyone have any friends in influential places? ;)


> Otherwise we are limited to putting in a bunch of hacks all over the 
> place to sort-of support frameworks, but not really getting it right. As 
> it is, we only have one or two hacks to get resources for libraries :-)


It's the fact that they have to be considered hacks that bothers me. 
For a development environment to mature, in my opinion only, it 
shouldn't have to be hacked up.  GNUstep shouldn't need to implement 
hacks for it to work.  I'm not saying that it's wrong to make those 
hacks, I'm saying it's wrong that you should be forced to do so.  Part 
of the ease of development on OS X is Cocoa's integration with the 
ENTIRE system.  That's very important.

Maybe if one raises enough of a stink, or even provides some code 
modifications to those who could slip them into the compiler/linker, 
it's possible to cooperatively benefit both camps.

Just my thoughts on the subject.



--

Tim Harrison
harrison@timharrison.com
http://www.linuxstep.org/