Re: Future of Cocoa

Now that I think about it, you can probably do this without support from the runtime by interposing the handful of runtime functions that invalidate the method cache… Saagar Jha > On Dec 16, 2019, at 00:23, Jean-Daniel wrote: > > My bad, I just see that when rereading the description. Of

Re: Future of Cocoa

My bad, I just see that when rereading the description. Of course, it will requires an updated runtime. > Le 16 déc. 2019 à 09:21, Saagar Jha a écrit : > > There’s also a check for method swizzling and other invalidation, assuming > that there is cooperation from the runtime. Unless I’m

Re: Future of Cocoa

There’s also a check for method swizzling and other invalidation, assuming that there is cooperation from the runtime. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by the selector changing? Saagar Jha > On Dec 16, 2019, at 00:16, Jean-Daniel wrote: > > >> Le 16 déc. 2019 à 06:05, Saagar Jha >

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Le 16 déc. 2019 à 06:05, Saagar Jha a écrit : > > It’s been a while, but I just thought you both might be interested in some > follow-up I did for this idea. I implemented it for fun in clang > and it turns out that it’s a > pretty decent

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 5:57 PM, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > Xojo is new to me, but it appears more a SwiftUI than a Cocoa substitute. Xojo is just the new name for RealBASIC, which has been around forever. It wouldn’t be my first choice. Charles

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

> On 11 Dec 2019, at 21:35, Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > >> QT is probably the most viable cross-platform tool, but steep learning >> curve and mediocre GUI. Will it survive if Cocoa is deprecated? > > Good question - I have no idea. > > But I suggest you reach out to the

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

> QT is probably the most viable cross-platform tool, but steep learning > curve and mediocre GUI. Will it survive if Cocoa is deprecated? Good question - I have no idea. But I suggest you reach out to the support, or ask on Qt's forums about roadmaps, or meet them in person at an

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

On 11.12.2019 at 00:57 Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev wrote: > wxWidgets is still Carbon, with an incomplete Cocoa fork. No, wxWidgets has a very stable, complete and usable Cocoa backend and it's not nearly as bloated as Qt. -- Best regards, Andreas Falkenhahn

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

>> Apple has absolutely zero need to deliver a cross-OS-platform Totally agreed. The issue isn't Apple vs Microsoft, it's iOS vs macOS. >> If you're so absolutely set on cross-platform, leave the cross-platform work to those who do that We had a good 30-year run selling on both Mac & Windows:

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 12:58 PM, Richard Charles via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > >> On Dec 10, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev >> wrote: >> >> Thoughts? >> > > > What if Apple were to open source Foundation, Core Data, etc., most every > thing but the UI so that

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > Thoughts? > What if Apple were to open source Foundation, Core Data, etc., most every thing but the UI so that developers could more easily generate cross platform apps. Recently visited this Microsoft web

Re: Future of Cocoa #2

> On Dec 10, 2019, at 11:56, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev > wrote: tl;dr Oh god NOOO! Steve via iPhone ___ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact

Future of Cocoa #2

Someone here suggested that I use an Apple DTS incident to ask about Cocoa's future, so I filed one Nov 19th. Still no reply. Ditto for a dev forum post, and an email to Aaron Hillegass. Meanwhile, we've been thinking about what to say to Apple that might help make our future app development

Re: Future of Cocoa

Please kill this thread. We're all sick of the constant notifications that turn out to only be this crap. Argue somewhere else. This is for development questions and getting real help. -- Steve Mills Drummer, Mac geek ___ Cocoa-dev mailing list

Re: Future of Cocoa

INCREDIBLY ridiculous! If I weren’t paid well and have a great, fulfilling job working on all of Apple’s platforms, I’d be tempted to make a competitive version of some of these develops’ apps to show how the difficulty in doing so is blown so out of proportion! It sounds like some people need

Re: Future of Cocoa

On Nov 21, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Pascal Bourguignon via Cocoa-dev wrote: > The Apple ecosystem implies an extraordinary maintenance load. > Specifically, your application must provide enough revenue to pay for a > couple of developpers only to track the changes Apple makes to the API, and >

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 21, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Gabriel Zachmann via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > >> >> If someone can afford days/weeks to do watch WWDC sessions consistently >> every year it's great. That's not a luxury all of us can afford and it's >> ridiculous to think this should be a requirement. >> > >

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Am 21.11.2019 um 23:43 schrieb Pascal Bourguignon via Cocoa-dev > : > > Actually, things have changed. On Macintosh, basically an application > developed in 1984 against the Inside Macintosh (1.0) specifications still > worked in 1999 in the blue box with MacOS 9.1. The platform was more

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 21, 2019, at 2:43 PM, Pascal Bourguignon via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > Why couldn’t we have application developed once for a few users, and working > consistently over long periods, on a stable platform? Stable platforms don't make money. (Except maybe in the enterprise market where

Re: Future of Cocoa

> čet 21.11.2019., at 23.43, Pascal Bourguignon wrote: > > It’s not like children not being happy. That comment was related to “I’m leaving this place” announcement, probably because “most of you don’t agree with what I find ‘valid concerns’ so I’m leaving”. That’s exactly how it sounded to

Re: Future of Cocoa

> > If someone can afford days/weeks to do watch WWDC sessions consistently > every year it's great. That's not a luxury all of us can afford and it's > ridiculous to think this should be a requirement. > But then, I am wondering, how does your company ensure your programmers stay

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 23:22, Dragan Milić via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > And then that famous “I leave” announcement, like children not being happy > with how others play with them, so grabbing their toys and leave… But not > before making a verbal announcement about it… Well yes, good bye! What

Re: Future of Cocoa

> čet 21.11.2019., at 23.06, Matthew Kozak wrote: > > Wow. > Debate (even heated) about Cocoa-dev (broadly) is one thing, but the personal > attacks, and attack on the list itself to the point of rage quitting, are all > unnecessary. Before sending messages, please look in the mirror and say

Re: Future of Cocoa

it for a moment from the other perspective. It'll do a world of good and some good for the world. Thank you, -Matt From: Cocoa-dev on behalf of Dragan Milić via Cocoa-dev Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:57 PM To: Cocoa-dev Subject: Re: Future of Cocoa

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Le 21 nov. 2019 à 21:20, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > a écrit : > > I won't respond each of you one by one but here are a couple of > observations. > > Metal is not a cross platform technology hence why so many projects still > rely on OpenGL in macOS (eg: Firefox). No, that because they

Re: Future of Cocoa

> ćet 21.11.2019., at 21.20, Pier Bover wrote: > > It's time for me to leave this mailing list. Yeah! Good bye! ___ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the

Re: Future of Cocoa

I find the arguments here interesting. If I were to develop an OpenGL-based app, I would probably need at least a week to get something basic working, and I’m sure that applies to pretty much anyone. If someone can spend time learning an SDK like OpenGL, then I don’t see what’s the problem with

Re: Future of Cocoa

I would add that for those of us developing for the Mac platform, the security sessions have been critical for the last two years. Without a good understanding of the issues discussed in those sessions, I don’t see how a developer's application could run properly on Catalina. I see the WWDC

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 21, 2019, at 12:20 PM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > If someone can afford days/weeks to do watch WWDC sessions consistently > every year it's great. That's not a luxury all of us can afford and it's > ridiculous to think this should be a requirement. All you need to watch

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 3:16 PM, Jean-Daniel wrote: > > If Obj-C is dead, why is Apple still adding new language extensions (and not > minor one) ? > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d4e1ba3fa9dfec2613bdcc7db0b58dea490c56b1 > This commit on GitHub was made on Nov 18, 2019 by

Re: Future of Cocoa

I won't respond each of you one by one but here are a couple of observations. Metal is not a cross platform technology hence why so many projects still rely on OpenGL in macOS (eg: Firefox). I don't understand those "the writing was in the wall" type of comments. Even if you think something was

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Saagar Jha wrote: > > Oh, I guess I didn’t explain what I was talking about well. I’m saying that > the compiler would do a full method inline but put it behind a check to see > if it’s legal to continue executing. That optimization would increase code size

Re: Future of Cocoa

Oh, I guess I didn’t explain what I was talking about well. I’m saying that the compiler would do a full method inline but put it behind a check to see if it’s legal to continue executing. For example, code like this: @interface Foo - (void)bar; @end // Another method in some random class -

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Saagar Jha wrote: > > I am curious why this optimization went in instead of guarded speculative > inlining, which would let you keep dynamism. If I understand it correctly, that only 'inlines' (really caches) the resolved method address for the call site.

Re: Future of Cocoa

Probably because the benefit is minor compare to this optimisation (which let the compiler completely inline the called ‘method’ if it want). The actual method dispatch implementation is fast enough (in case of cache hit) to not gain much from inline caching, which introduce another layer of

Re: Future of Cocoa

I am curious why this optimization went in instead of guarded speculative inlining, which would let you keep dynamism. Maybe that was too complicated to implement or didn’t have the right performance characteristics. But I guess this isn’t really the right list for discussing that… Saagar Jha

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Jean-Daniel via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > If Obj-C is dead, why is Apple still adding new language extensions (and not > minor one) ? > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d4e1ba3fa9dfec2613bdcc7db0b58dea490c56b1 > >

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Le 20 nov. 2019 à 01:26, Gerald Henriksen via Cocoa-dev > a écrit : > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:51:14 -0700, you wrote: > >> When committing to 64 bit Apple said NO to Carbon but YES to Cocoa and YES >> to Core Foundation and YES to a lot of other stuff. The OS still has the XNU >> (Mach)

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > For example the vast majority of audio software > companies are still communicating to its users to not update to Catalina. > Huge audio companies like Native Instruments are still struggling with this. That's misleading.

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:28 AM, Pier Bover wrote: > > > Its not Apples fault if you were not aware. They were both highly talked > > about during their respective WWDC events. > > The vast majority of developers do not go to the WWDC and do not have time to > watch the dozens (hundreds?) of

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > The vast majority of developers do not go to the WWDC and do not have time > to watch the dozens (hundreds?) of hours of videos to maybe find something > relevant about the future of macOS dev. In that case, scan through the

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Its not Apples fault if you were not aware. They were both highly talked about during their respective WWDC events. The vast majority of developers do not go to the WWDC and do not have time to watch the dozens (hundreds?) of hours of videos to maybe find something relevant about the future of

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Nothing explicit is said about it, but none of the public-facing pages > mention either Cocoa or Objective-C. It's all SwiftUI and Swift. Searches > still show pages for them, but not the clickable links I followed. Try: developer.apple.com -> Click “Develop” -> Click “Documentation” (both

Re: Future of Cocoa

Saagar Jha > On Nov 19, 2019, at 20:01, Richard Charles via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > >> On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev >> wrote: >> >>> When/if Apple decides to deprecate Cocoa they will announce it many years >>> ahead of time >>> >> >> Like they did with 32 bits

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > >> When/if Apple decides to deprecate Cocoa they will announce it many years >> ahead of time >> > > Like they did with 32 bits and OpenGL deprecation? > The 32 bit depreciation has had a lot of discussion on this

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Pier Bover wrote: > > > When/if Apple decides to deprecate Cocoa they will announce it many years > > ahead of time > > Like they did with 32 bits and OpenGL deprecation? Yes, exactly. 32Bit was deprecated in 2012 and officially killed in 2019.

Re: Future of Cocoa

> When/if Apple decides to deprecate Cocoa they will announce it many years ahead of time Like they did with 32 bits and OpenGL deprecation? ___ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments

Re: Future of Cocoa

The sky is not falling. When/if Apple decides to deprecate Cocoa they will announce it many years ahead of time, like they did for Carbon back in 2012 (which was only officially killed in 2019). They typically make announcements like that at a WWDC. They aren’t going to stop supporting it

Re: Future of Cocoa

There seems to be a misunderstanding that just because the word “Cocoa” doesn’t appear, nor "Objective-C” in the latest WWDC videos to a great extent, that they are no longer relevant. If you watch any of the videos to the end, you’ll notice that rather than repeating every detail every year,

Re: Future of Cocoa

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:51:14 -0700, you wrote: >When committing to 64 bit Apple said NO to Carbon but YES to Cocoa and YES to >Core Foundation and YES to a lot of other stuff. The OS still has the XNU >(Mach) Kernel and FreeBSD (written in C & C++), the Cocoa frameworks (base >layer written in

Re: Future of Cocoa

xpect wholesale rewrites in the near future. —Jens ___ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > I have been poking around on developer.apple.com, trying to get the big > picture on the future of Cocoa for Mac. Ditto for the future of big apps. > Send an email to Aaron Hillegass. He mig

Re: Future of Cocoa

This. So much this. On 11/19/19, Steve Mills via Cocoa-dev wrote: > You should use an external poll site for this rather than filling the list > with yet another thread full of discussions and arguments. > > Steve via iPhone > >> On Nov 19, 2019, at 10:42, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev >>

Re: Future of Cocoa

+1 Also, the reference docs can be toggled between Obj-C & Swift via the “Language” popup at the top of the page. —Rob > On Nov 19, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Steve Mills via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > You should use an external poll site for this rather than filling the list > with yet another thread

Re: Future of Cocoa

You should use an external poll site for this rather than filling the list with yet another thread full of discussions and arguments. Steve via iPhone > On Nov 19, 2019, at 10:42, Turtle Creek Software via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > Before I email comments to Apple, it would help to know more

Future of Cocoa

I have been poking around on developer.apple.com, trying to get the big picture on the future of Cocoa for Mac. Ditto for the future of big apps. Nothing explicit is said about it, but none of the public-facing pages mention either Cocoa or Objective-C. It's all SwiftUI and Swift. Searches still