Hello James:
This is hardly constructive. How, specifically, do you think GNUstep
could be improved?
Here is why I care about GNUstep, though I am a late-comer to this
community, and not very actively involved (yet).
1. It aims for parity with the native toolkit of a mainstream platform
(OS X). True, WINE does the same for Windows, but see the next point.
2. Said API has a unified object-oriented foundation, unlike the mess
we have on Windows.
3. This API is more friendly to dynamic languages than wxWidgets, GTK,
or Qt, let alone the mess of API's on Windows. By dynamic languages, I
mean languages like Python, Ruby, Lua, Io, Smalltalk, and even
JavaScript. Unlike the other toolkits I mentioned, Cocoa and GNUstep
don't require you to write, or even generate, bindings for every object.
4. The GNUstep Renaissance project is useful even to developers who
only care about Cocoa, especially for developers who don't want to (or
can't) use Interface Builder or Gorm.
I know the GNUstep team is addressing the problem of aesthetics, so if
this isn't possible already, you should eventually be able to make
GNUstep apps look the way you want. Especially apps that use
Renaissance instead of the fixed layouts produced by Gorm.
(Incidentally, it saddens me that GNUstep newcomers are still attracted
to Gorm rather than Renaissance.)
True, GNUstep is short on contributors. Is this your primary concern?
You say GNUstep could have been great. It can be still. But what,
exactly, does this mean to you?
Matt
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
