> Am 29.11.2019 um 17:30 schrieb Riccardo Mottola :
>
> Hi,
>
> Derek Fawcus wrote:
>> While dropping support for GCC does not strike me as a problem,
>> switching the core implementation to depend upon C++ may well do.
>>
>> How many developers are comfortable with C++?
>
> I don't like it.
Am 28.11.2019 um 22:06 schrieb Niels Grewe :
>
> On 28.11.19 17:15, Frederik Seiffert wrote:
>> - Set up CI testing for the 2.0 runtime version, which currently doesn’t
>> seem to be tested with libs-base.
>> I have submitted a pull request for this
>>
On 29 Nov 2019, at 11:43, Frederik Seiffert wrote:
Am 28.11.2019 um 22:06 schrieb Niels Grewe
:
On 28.11.19 17:15, Frederik Seiffert wrote:
- Set up CI testing for the 2.0 runtime version, which currently
doesn’t seem to be tested with libs-base.
I have submitted a pull request for this
Hi Fred,
Fred Kiefer wrote:
There are many benefits that ObjC 2.0 support with clang could bring, still I
can understand why some people prefer to stay with a compiler and a language
they know. I myself use gcc and even with its limitations it allows me to do
useful programming for GNUstep.
Hi Ivan,
Ivan Vučica wrote:
Now, I see what David says about use of C++ in implementation of
Foundation... but I’d expect that putting C++ would bring the
compilation times up for everyone. Not a showstopper, but there’s
something cool about all of GNUstep being buildable really quickly
Hi,
Derek Fawcus wrote:
While dropping support for GCC does not strike me as a problem,
switching the core implementation to depend upon C++ may well do.
How many developers are comfortable with C++?
I don't like it. Actually, my love for GNUstep is not only the
OpenStep-like API, but
Hi Bertrand,
Bertrand Dekoninck wrote:
I’m happy to see how such a sensitive topic (compilers…) does progress these
days. And I’d really be very happy if the gnustep runtime could run on ppc
(both 32 and 64).
Last time I tried (on debian 8 ppc32, 1 year ago or even more ?) it failed, and
I
