Re: A Critique: Getting Started with GNUstep on Windows

[Dan Hitt]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Dan Hitt <dan.hitt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For developing software --- it was easy and pleasant
>> to bang out applications using NeXT, and imvho there
>> is still nothing comparable, certainly not in the free world.
>
> But does that workflow call for an entire OS to support it?

I don't think it requires a new entire OS to support it, but
i think it requires an entire OS, where some parts are reused
from other projects.

And, i think it's not just a workflow.  Because, after all, i think
that in principle, you can take a system, say ubuntu, and
install gnustep on it, and if you fiddle with it enough, get
it to work at least partially.  But everytime ubuntu changes
(i.e., every six months) you'll have to do that again.

Much better if the valuable parts of the stack (Gorm/IB,
ProjectCenter, copy-paste apparatus, dock, window manager)
were tuned to a particular OS that the gnustep developers control.

They should never be in a position of having to respond to
a change in the kernel, or a change in the compiler,
or a change in the XYZ utility.  Instead, they should choose
the kernel, the compiler, the utilities, and accept updates
only when it makes sense for the top of the stack.

I think Apple has only rarely put itself in a position
of producing software on a stack it didn't control.
And when it did (quicktime) it was for a very definite
reason, and of course they had enormous resoucres
to do it with.

> Sure, it’d
> be nice to *get* to that some day, but with limited resources I’d argue
> that a more modest and calculated approach is what GNUstep needs to be
> viable for the future.

I sure agree with the approach --- "modest and calculated" --- but
i think running on somebody else's stack is neither of those :)

.....

>> And as Doug Simons and others have pointed out, there are
>> a lot of competing visions.  What's good for my use case
>> may be worse than useless for his.
>
> Sure.  That’s why I’d like GNUstep to have a specific stated vision/plan
> of its own, so that it is clear to newcomers whether or not their time
> should be spent following/contributing to the project.  Leaving it as a
> free-for-all is *not* the way to engage a larger community.

Well, they do --- i mean, the page you see when you visit gnustep.org
is very clear (imvho) about what you're getting into: you're
getting into Middleware City.

I would like it if the purpose were different, but they have had some
success (the Simons use case), and i hope they continue to have
these successes, and more.

And i may be totally misinterpreting your remarks, because
after all i certainly have concerns and viewpoints which
will cloud what i read.

Maybe i should pose this as a question: if you were writing
a "specific stated vision/plan" for gnustep, what would it say
(just briefly, as an overview, not detailed)?

What would it say if it were to reflect what you want?

What would it say if it were to reflect the reality of gnustep today?
(Would it be different than what's there today?)

dan