On 2 Dec 2016, at 15:15, Edwin Ancaer wrote:
>
> I humbly apologize.
>
> Would it be better if I rephrase as:
> > And imagine that for a popular Linux distribution there is a packaged
> > version for GNUstep (base, make, gui & back) made with mulle-objc compiler
> > and
> > mulle obj-c runti
I humbly apologize.
Would it be better if I rephrase as:
> And imagine that for a popular Linux distribution there is a packaged
> version for GNUstep (base, make, gui & back) made with
*mulle-objc compiler and> mulle obj-c runtime *> And then again, imagine I
packaged my application for this di
On 2 December 2016 at 15:04, Edwin Ancaer wrote:
> I don't have experience with this kind of varied environments, so this might
> be a stupid question...
>
> let's imagine I created this wonderful application with GNUstep.
> And imagine that for a popular Linux distribution there is a packaged
> v
I don't have experience with this kind of varied environments, so this
might be a stupid question...
let's imagine I created this wonderful application with GNUstep.
And imagine that for a popular Linux distribution there is a packaged
version for GNUstep (base, make, gui & back) made with compile
On 1 Dec 2016, at 21:16, Luboš Doležel wrote:
>
> Dne 1.12.2016 v 17:30 David Chisnall napsal(a):
>> On 1 Dec 2016, at 16:26, Matt Butch wrote:
>>> I’m hoping to be able to use Objective-C on servers, so Mulle-Objc might be
>>> a good option for that. If it can get a good community behind it, e
Dne 1.12.2016 v 17:30 David Chisnall napsal(a):
On 1 Dec 2016, at 16:26, Matt Butch wrote:
I’m hoping to be able to use Objective-C on servers, so Mulle-Objc might be a
good option for that. If it can get a good community behind it, even better.
I’m not sure why Mulle-Objc brings there. I kn
On 01/12/16 17:33, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2016, at 16:12, Steven R. Baker wrote:
>> It might not be true today. But at some point, Apple will see fit to not
>> give back a feature. A feature that people will depend on.
> Which part of ‘Apple is not even the largest single contributor’
> Am 01.12.2016 um 11:39 schrieb Riccardo Mottola :
>
> Hi Stepper,
>
> Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
>> you might be interested in this: mulle-objc is a new way to run Objective-C
>> code on various platforms, based on a new compiler and a new runtime.
>>
>> https://mulle-objc.github.io
>>
On 1 Dec 2016, at 16:12, Steven R. Baker wrote:
>
> It might not be true today. But at some point, Apple will see fit to not
> give back a feature. A feature that people will depend on.
Which part of ‘Apple is not even the largest single contributor’ did you not
understand? If Apple stopped co
On 1 Dec 2016, at 16:26, Matt Butch wrote:
>
> I’m hoping to be able to use Objective-C on servers, so Mulle-Objc might be a
> good option for that. If it can get a good community behind it, even better.
I’m not sure why Mulle-Objc brings there. I know of three different Foundation
implement
I’ve checked it out, and I think I’ll be helping out. I’m a huge fan of
Objective-C, and with Swift being the new hotness (despite my belief its a
pretty bad language), its great to see another option for it.
I’m hoping to be able to use Objective-C on servers, so Mulle-Objc might be a
good opt
On 01/12/16 12:06, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2016, at 07:43, Steven R. Baker wrote:
>> I would like to add an additional concern. I know that LLVM and clang are
>> the new hotness, but they're de facto owned by Apple now. It won't be long
>> before there are new and hot features that ar
On 1 Dec 2016, at 07:43, Steven R. Baker wrote:
>
> I would like to add an additional concern. I know that LLVM and clang are the
> new hotness, but they're de facto owned by Apple now. It won't be long before
> there are new and hot features that are in Apple's own version of LLVM, and
> it'l
Hi Stepper,
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
you might be interested in this: mulle-objc is a new way to run Objective-C
code on various platforms, based on a new compiler and a new runtime.
https://mulle-objc.github.io
some more background information is available here:
https://news.ycombinat
[snip]
> All of this just to say I fear that having a new runtime might not be
> what is needed to save GNUstep
> from oblivion. Now I will just start thinking about what I will do to
> save it.
I agree with everything you've said here. I share your concerns.
I would like to add an additional co
First things first: I never contributed to GNUstep, and I probably never
will: for 30 years I've been developping and analyzing IBM-mainframe
applications with exotic tools like Cobol, IMS, DB2, Rexx, JCL, so I do
feel slightly uncomfortable in the PC-environment, as the prverbial
Englishman in Ne
16 matches
Mail list logo
