Re: Cocoa/Windows parallel dvlpmt

[Philip Mötteli]

Am 04.02.2004 um 19:10 schrieb Philippe C.D. Robert:
> Philip Mötteli wrote:
> > Am 04.02.2004 um 11:34 schrieb Florent Pillet:
> Anyway, if you read my posting, I was not talking about GNUstep on 
> Windows, but about porting Mac OS X apps to GNUstep....
>
> > I don't think, this is vey difficult. The problem of GS is manpower. 
> > In order to get that manpower, GS has to be usefull for them. 
> > Unfortunately, the only use of GS most of the developer see, is as a 
> > porting means. But at the moment they still think that it takes too 
> > much effort (costs too much) to port with GNUstep to Windows. So GS 
> > don't gets those developers and P.C.D. Robert is frustrated about the 
> > progress of GS.
>
> I am not frustrated about the progress of GNUstep, I wouldn't allow 
> myself to be frustrated as I do currently not contribute to the 
> GNUstep project. I hope this will change again anytime soon.

You publically stated that some months ago. You yourself used the word 
"frustrated":
From: Philippe C.D. Robert, Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:22:45 +0200: "It's just 
that my my frustrations are due to the fact that although many talented 
programmers worked on this project for almost a decade it did not live 
up the (my?) expectations until now. And since I spent some time on 
GNUstep related stuff I allow myself to be a little frustrated... "

That initiated a thread with a quite comparable subject.


> > > OTOH, if Apple would somehow revive the Yellow box I'd be happy too. 
> > > I'd even be happy to pay for it, as long as it allows me to 
> > > seamlessly port my apps...
> > I do agree again. But lets say it in the words of P.C.D. Robert: 
> > "...it would probably be a wasted effort. Unfortunately - for most 
> > Mac OS X developers - there is no or at least it seems that there is 
> > no such user base". He surely knows better than you.
>
> Do not rip sentences out of context, if you want fairness then be fair 
> yourself! What I said was:
>
> "...there must be some potential user base on the "other platform" in 
> order to justify a porting effort. Otherwise it just does not make 
> sense to port, it would probably be a wasted effort."

Yes, and in the same sentence, you say, that there is actually no 
userbase. So no sense to port. It's the second phrase, that makes the 
conclusion and it remains the same without the explanation. I didn't 
change the sense, by deleting the beginning of the phrase.


> And I said this, because I think that it is not sufficient that 
> GNUstep ports are just possible (technically they are already),

I'm not sure if all those MOSX developer do agree with you. I merely 
think, that that is actually their problem.


> GNUstep also needs to provide some "integration factor" into the 
> native environment, be it X11 or Windows, otherwise *users* will not 
> be interested in using such apps, and as a consequence there won't be 
> a potential user base for such ports.

You remain quite undefined here. To make it a little bit more 
accessible, I think, we could take OpenStep for Windows as an example. 
I think most of the MOSX developers here would judge that as having a 
suffiently high "integration factor". And as I remember you judged it 
in the last thread as having not enough "integration factor", didn't 
you? Which would lead to the conclusion, that you believe there's no 
user base, because we will probably never have a higher "integration 
factor", than NeXT's OpenStep for Windows had.

But this discussion is purely academic, because your opinion has, IMHO, 
already been proven wrong, by the big current interest in the Windows 
port of GNUstep.


Re
Phil