At 3:56 PM +0200 6/25/01, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
>Yes and no. I am not for forgetting completely MacOS Classic. MacOS 9 still
>have 2 yrs lifetime in term of software development, because lot of users
>are not ready to do the switch.
Agreed, but is it worth the investment? Right now, all the
work you've been doing has been Carbon for OS X (using CG, etc.). I
suggest that we continue to focus on that as the target for Mac OS -
and then if there are enough users who also want it for "classic", we
can make the necessary changes in the Carbon build.
>Actually I have thought about some for the same exact reason: port GTK+ to
>CoreGraphics and you'll get GNOME almost for free :-)
Yup! I actually got most of GNOME working under XFree on OS
X during MacHack so that we could demo Nautilus running on it - but
didn't get it done in time. There are still a few oddities about OS
X's Unix (especially with libtool!).
> > The main problem, in my mind, with going to Cocoa is the same
>> one that has been discussed over time with using PowerPlant, MFC,
>> etc. is that it means breaking away from common code for the
>> framework and only using common code for the editing "core".
>
>See what have been done for the BeOS version. BeOS API are a C++ framework.
>So I don't see this as a problem, but as an advantage.
>
So then why not use PowerPlant to build the Mac OS version??
We'd get there a LOT sooner??
Leonard
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got a SmartFriend� in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/>
Coola Signature: <http://signature.coola.com/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
