Helge Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > On 25. Apr 2005, at 18:27 Uhr, dieymir wrote: > Ah, OK, so you mean "incomplete wrt OpenStep Foundation API". Yes, > thats right and we do not target for that. > Having said that I don't think that libFoundation is "inmature" > compared to gnustep-base. The latter just has more stuff in it. > OK, libFoundation it's useful for lot of people now, that's the only important thing.
> Personally I would prefer that gnustep-base evolves into a state so > that it can be used for non-GNUstep development (eg no GNUstep.sh, > proper integration into Unix/Windows). > I'm with you on this, see my request later in this thread. > > In fact I'm very interesting in libFoundation because I want to > > program in Objective-C and any modern OO language needs an utility > > library like C++ STL or Java API to be completely useful, I think that > > the lack of such thing makes lot of harm to ObjC. gnustep-base has the > > problem that it's very integrated in the GNUstep environment and it's > > not intended to be used standalone like any other library you can link > > and this is what I like about libFoundation. > > I'm not entirely sure I get your point. IMHO you map "incomplete wrt > OpenStep" to "immature". The latter certainly does not hold true for > lF. > I'm interested in the libFoundation 'concept', an utility library (a Foundation implementation because it's a 'de facto standard') for those who want to program in Objective-C but aren't interested in GNUstep development, you state the same above. Regards. _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
