Re: Is GNUstep really cross platform? (was: FW: GNUstep on MS Windows (Oh boy...i've done it now!))

[John Davidorff Pell]

We're going no where fast. I get the feeling that you are either being 
intentionally difficult, or I fell on my head earlier and can't seem to 
understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to patronize you, I 
really do not understand why all the documentation that i've read, as 
well as my own experience, contradict what I think your saying.

On Dec 5, 2003, at 12:56 AM, Philip Mötteli wrote:

> Am 05.12.2003 um 08:02 schrieb John Davidorff Pell:
> > We seem to have VERY diff sets of information.
>
> Well, as I said, I use GS on my everyday work (not paid, 
> unfortunately). GDL2 and GSWeb, which are huge packages with a 
> tremedous functionality, work here. So don't tell me I'm not using it.

Ok. :-)

> > If you ignore the opinions (which from your email seems to be 
> > unlikely, no offense), you'll find that there is a whole lot that I 
> > had to do to get a GNUstep-base to compile in a usable way, including 
> > compiling GNU's objc runtime. GNUSTEP BASE WILL NOT WORK ON APPLE's 
> > RUNTIME! The "additions" do compile, but then I don't have a working 
> > GNUstep-base, and no DO.
> >
> > FYI, I have never used, nor know anyone who uses, ONLY GNUstep-base. 
> > I'm talking about GNUstep as in ALL OG GNUStep, including 
> > GNUstep-gui.
>
> Why would you want to duplicate AppKit and Foundation with something 
> identical? You have redundancy, an awful lot more work for nothing and 
> you're not compatibel with the rest of the system (even copy paste 
> shouldn't work).

They are NOT identical. If GNUstep uses X11's copy/paste, it will work 
fine.

> The only reason could be, if you want to run some specific 
> GS-applications. But we have on MOSX for every GS application 
> something at the very least equivalent. So there's no reason, to not 
> use the native things from MOSX if they are available and only port 
> the differences. Then, DO and NSInvocation and all that work without a 
> problem.

You are using portions (Additions) of a portion (Base) of GNUstep, and 
some packages that run on that sub-subset of GNUstep.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. GNUstep and cocoa (any 
version) are NOT source compatible. If I write a program for cocoa, I 
CANNOT compile it in GNUstep. If I write a program in GNUstep, I CANNOT 
compile it in cocoa. By using the GSCompat headers that you mention, 
then some of this will work. Perhaps even most.

There are many many parts of cocoa that have absolutely nothing 
equivalent in GNUstep, almost entirely recent additions, but there 
none-the-less. Thus, I must aim for GNUstep. There are many parts of 
GNUstep-base that are NOT part of cocoa. Ok, compile the "Additions". 
What about GNUstep-gui? There are numerous parts of GNUstep-gui that 
are not in cocoa, and many implementation errors (i.e. minor deviations 
from the OpenStep standard).

What do you suggest for my gui? Do you have an GNUstep-gui-additions? 
If you do, then please tell me how you got it!


> > On Dec 4, 2003, at 1:55 PM, Philip Mötteli wrote:
> >
> > > Am 04.12.2003 um 21:57 schrieb John Davidorff Pell:
> > > > I think that the biggest thing that GNUstep could do is make it run 
> > > > on the next runtime, or even make it compile and link its own gnu 
> > > > runtime on darwin. With this I, and many like me, would happily 
> > > > develop for *both* GNUstep and MacOSX, without any need to *hope* 
> > > > that GNUstep will compile my sources.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but the problem, you're mentionning is not as big as you 
> > > think. It's right, the runtimes are not compatibel, but
> > >
> > > 1. You shouldn't need to go down to the runtime anyway. This should 
> > > really happen very, very rarely.
> > > 2. GS already offers a lot of compatibility functions. Just use 
> > > those functions and they will automagically compile on both 
> > > platforms.
> >
> > You don't need to go down to the runtime, GNUstep does all that for 
> > you.
>
> So if you don't go down to the runtime, you don't need GS's core and 
> gui on MOSX. Only the difference to Foundation and AppKit.

Where is the diff to AppKit?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Foundation is in 
GNUstep-base-additions, where is GNUstep-gui-additions?

> >  but GNUstep does NOT work between runtimes!
>
> If you mean portable between runtimes, yes it is (with a recompile of 
> course). If you don't want to build a parallel system on your MOSX.

GNUstep is NOT portable between runtimes. GNUstep-gui DOES NOT WORK AT 
ALL ON NeXT RUNTIME!

> > as long as you stick to the Foundation/AppKit, most things will 
> > compile on Mac OS X
>
> Exactly. And that should also be true for GS's tool set: If they stick 
> to Foundation/AppKit, they should just compile and work on MOSX. 
> Otherwise, they should correct that and not the rest should adapt to 
> them, by needing to port glibobjc.

So you're admitting that it might not work? They do not work, and they 
should be fixed to be correct, that's what I'm saying.

> > You use "additions", I understand that. but that is USELESS if I want 
> > to compile GNUstep-gui. Care to port GNUstep-gui to work on 
> > apple-apple-gnu?
>
> Why should I? gui is supposed to be AppKit. I don't need a second 
> AppKit on my MOSX. What a mess would that be? Redundancy should always 
> be eliminated and not created.
> The problem is only there, where gui or MOSX AppKit didn't stick to 
> the OpenStep reference. These cases have to be handled individually. 
> Preferably, by correcting the source on the wrong side. If not 
> possible, by implementing compatibility methods.

That's right, -gui is supposed to be AppKit, and it is not. It is not 
compatable. If I am developing for (bad example, but easy to 
understand) Winblows XP, you cannot expect my app to workin Windows 
3.11 unless I made sure it would, in which case its really an app 
written for Windows 3.11.

I cannot write for cocoa and compile on GNUstep-gui. It does not work! 
GNUstep-gui is a) very incomplete and b) very incompatible.

> > So you'd rather have many mostly-working functions, than any working 
> > ones?
>
> Yes, take the example of GDL2: It's by far not complete. But I would 
> be very sad, if it wouldn't be there. For me I had to contribute to 
> it, but now it works flawlessly. If the original implementors would 
> have said: "oh, no it's not complete so lets hide it", I would be 
> missing something very valuable.
> In my eyes, open-source works like that. Everybody complets and 
> debugs, what he needs. As long as we are all walking in the same 
> direction, this works well.

Yes, but if I am walking at 2 miles an hour, and you are in a Porsche, 
there might be problems.

> > 'm exaggerating,
>
> Modestly said, yes!
>
>
> > but please understand my point.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think I didn't really get it.   :-(
>
>
> > Thank you for your reply, but perhaps you should check your 
> > information before you tell me to check mine.
>
> Well, I'm probably the main contributor at the moment concerning GS on 
> MOSX. Though, I do not use everything from GS. I use GS core (which 
> boils of course down to Additions), GDL2, gsantlr and GSWeb.

So you do not use GS core, you use a minor subset of GS core. The 
packages that you mention are for GNUstep, but not part *of* GNUstep. 
GNUstep- proper consists of -make -base -gui and -back. You use none of 
these.

JP




--
Every time you share on a P2P network, God kills a kitten.
Please think of the kittens.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature