--- Edward Moy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is really needed at this
point is for the CamelBones community to get
together and innovate.
Create some killer apps with CamelBones. Get
developer excited about
this technology.
I'll bite.
Dunno if it'd count as killer or not but I
Good evening,
On 9/6/05 at 2:39 AM -0700, wren argetlahm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Sherm, I haven't toyed with CB since the days of
10.2, anything I should know before diving in again?
And are there any licensing issues that would prevent using CB in a commercial
app?
Charlie
--
On Jun 9, 2005, at 5:39 AM, wren argetlahm wrote:
Dunno if it'd count as killer or not but I have a
F/OSS project I've been working on that's been looking
for a GUI for a while. We were going to go with Python
for cross-platformability, but I've been thinking
about learning Cocoa for a while
On Jun 9, 2005, at 7:29 AM, Charlie Garrison wrote:
And are there any licensing issues that would prevent using CB in a
commercial
app?
No. I chose the Lesser GPL over the GPL for precisely that reason -
the viral aspect of the license applies to the framework *only*,
not to your apps.
On Jun 9, 2005, at 4:39 AM, wren argetlahm wrote:
--- Edward Moy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is really needed at this
point is for the CamelBones community to get
together and innovate.
Create some killer apps with CamelBones. Get
developer excited about
this technology.
I'll bite.
My main question about the change to Intel is why the developer pack,
whatever it was, costs so much? What do you get for your $999? I was
expecting something free to download to developer members.
As others have said, they throw in a computer.
Keep in mind the Developer Transition System
On Jun 8, 2005, at 5:53 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
There's been some discussion on the Perl 5 Porters' list as well,
wondering if Apple could set up accounts on a 'net-accessible machine.
Such a machine would be helpful to several others besides myself. The
latest CB version supports
On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On Jun 8, 2005, at 12:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No promises, but if you want to work on CamelBones for i386, I can
put out some feelers and see if we can help someway.
There's been some discussion on the Perl 5 Porters' list as well,
On Jun 7, 2005, at 12:07 AM, Ken Williams wrote:
I suggest going straight to Apple and pitching the idea of
developing CamelBones for them.
Been there, tried that - three times now. The first time was before
Jaguar's release; Apple opted to include their own in-house bridge
instead.
Sherm Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To most developers using Cocoa or Carbon, building a fat binary is
painless - it's a matter of checking the right box in Xcode. The
problem I'm facing is that for CamelBones, because of the way Perl
builds its modules, the transition will be far more
They say misery loves company - so here it is:
Python on Mac OS X for Intel is not going to be a seamless
transition.
http://bob.pythonmac.org/archives/2005/06/06/python-on-mac-os-x-
x86
sherm--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume:
So, how can we help?
I do doubt that long-term Camelbones can support you if it hasn't already,
but specific one-time causes can often get quite a bit in the way of
donations. If you need an Intel Mac to continue builds, post a goal and a
link to donate. I bet you'll make your goal.
Daniel T.
Daniel T. Staal wrote:
So, how can we help?
I do doubt that long-term Camelbones can support you if it hasn't already,
but specific one-time causes can often get quite a bit in the way of
donations. If you need an Intel Mac to continue builds, post a goal and a
link to donate. I bet you'll
Sherm == Sherm Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sherm I've thought about doing that, but I have my doubts. I was registered
Sherm a couple of years ago to give a talk about CamelBones at O'Reilly's
Sherm OSCON. Only three or four people registered for it, so it was
Sherm cancelled due to lack
Is there any reason you would NEED to compile it fat? Does anybody
expect that the same partition will boot on both x386 and PowerPC macs?
Ian
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Gisle Aas wrote:
Why would it be painful to compile perl and its
On 2005.6.7, at 11:13 PM, Robert wrote:
Wiggins d'Anconia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Ragsdale wrote:
On Jun 6, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Jobs is insane.
I'm not so sure about that. IBM seems unwilling or unable to produce
mobile G5s, which is
On 2005.6.7, at 05:47 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On Jun 6, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
For me, the computer industry just lost its last little bit of shine.
For me, it lost that shine years ago. When I began learning to
program, everything was new. Every week, it seemed, someone was
Ian Ragsdale said:
Is there any reason you would NEED to compile it fat? Does anybody
expect that the same partition will boot on both x386 and PowerPC macs?
For that matter, look into if you need to compile it on a Mac... If you
can get enough of the toolset to run under Darwin, you could
I'm not so sure about that. IBM seems unwilling or unable to
produce mobile G5s, which is a market that Apple considers very
important. They also are 2 years behind schedule on 3.0Ghz G5s,
and appear to be focusing on video game processors instead of
desktop and mobile processors.
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Joseph Alotta wrote:
I used to be a NeXt developer. This announcement is very
reminiscent of the NeXt announcement to stop making those little
black boxes and bring NeXt OS on Intel chips. We had just bought a
ton of hardware and they demo this clunky 386 PC.
Joseph Alotta wrote:
I used to be a NeXt developer. This announcement is very reminiscent
of the NeXt announcement to stop making those little black boxes and
bring NeXt OS on Intel chips. We had just bought a ton of hardware and
they demo this clunky 386 PC. First of all, it looked
Ian Ragsdale wrote:
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Joseph Alotta wrote:
I used to be a NeXt developer. This announcement is very reminiscent
of the NeXt announcement to stop making those little black boxes and
bring NeXt OS on Intel chips. We had just bought a ton of hardware
and they
On Jun 7, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
Ian Ragsdale wrote:
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Joseph Alotta wrote:
Did NeXT produce their own boxes, or did they allow installs on
any PC
with supported hardware. I believe that is a key difference. Apple
boxes will be exactly
Brian McKee wrote:
On 7-Jun-05, at 1:57 PM, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
Why wouldn't you? Memory, drives, video, etc. are all the same right
now. Motherboard has pretty standard features, other than it is setup
for a Power processor. Apple has been going cheap for a while, SCSI -
IDE ring
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
In fact, the first thing I thought after hearing about the x86
announcement was oooh, I hope CamelBones continues to work!.
Of the trouble points I mentioned - a fat perl, a tool chain that
will build fat binaries while running on PPC,
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Ian Ragsdale wrote:
Is there any reason you would NEED to compile it fat? Does anybody
expect that the same partition will boot on both x386 and PowerPC
macs?
No, but end users will expect a downloaded binary to be able to work
on either one.
sherm--
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
For that matter, look into if you need to compile it on a Mac...
If you
can get enough of the toolset to run under Darwin, you could grab
any old
PC box if you needed too.
Wouldn't help - Cocoa's not part of Darwin.
sherm--
Cocoa
On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:57 AM, Lola Lee wrote:
in my recent performance review, we've agreed that I will have the
opportunity to leran another programming language, like PHP.
Ouch. That hurts. PHP? Did you tell them you already know a *sane*
LAMP language - Perl?
There are applications
On 7-Jun-05, at 1:57 PM, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
Why wouldn't you? Memory, drives, video, etc. are all the same right
now. Motherboard has pretty standard features, other than it is setup
for a Power processor. Apple has been going cheap for a while, SCSI -
IDE ring any bells? It would be a
My main question about the change to Intel is why the developer pack,
whatever it was, costs so much? What do you get for your $999? I was
expecting something free to download to developer members.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, John Horner wrote:
My main question about the change to Intel is why the developer pack,
whatever it was, costs so much? What do you get for your $999? I was
expecting something free to download to developer members.
They throw in a Pentium4 / 3.x gHz computer with the
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, Chris Devers wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, John Horner wrote:
My main question about the change to Intel is why the developer
pack, whatever it was, costs so much? What do you get for your $999?
I was expecting something free to download to developer members.
They throw
They throw in a Pentium4 / 3.x gHz computer with the deal.
Phrase it that way and it's actually kind of cheap... :-/
Oops. I must have missed that part in the excitement! So that means
IntelMacs (MacTels? PentiuMacs?) will be out in the wild very
shortly, in that sense at least. How
--As of Wednesday, June 8, 2005 9:02 AM +1000, John Horner is alleged to
have said:
My main question about the change to Intel is why the developer pack,
whatever it was, costs so much? What do you get for your $999? I was
expecting something free to download to developer members.
--As for
Hi Randal (I'm going to be on the panel that Randal will be speaking
at).
Let me say that PyObjC (the python equivalent to CamelBones) is
getting a lot of attention recently, and the Python on Mac OS X
session at WWDC on Wednesday morning talks a good deal about PyObjC
(I also maintain
On the surface, today's announcement of a shift to Intel chips is
great news for CamelBones developers - Perl code is not, after all,
compiled for a specific CPU type. Given the presence of the
appropriate supporting framework, Perl code should run just as well
on a Mac/Intel as it does on
I know what you mean, Sherm. Wish I could send you something to push
into the iNTEL Mac world with, but I'm in the same position as you.
Hope you can find a place that can see the value in understanding perl
from the inside. If Perl 6 moves ahead, perl might go into the embedded
world the way
On Jun 6, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Jobs is insane.
I'm not so sure about that. IBM seems unwilling or unable to produce
mobile G5s, which is a market that Apple considers very important.
They also are 2 years behind schedule on 3.0Ghz G5s, and appear to be
focusing on video
Ian Ragsdale wrote:
On Jun 6, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Jobs is insane.
I'm not so sure about that. IBM seems unwilling or unable to produce
mobile G5s, which is a market that Apple considers very important.
They also are 2 years behind schedule on 3.0Ghz G5s, and appear to
Hey Sherm,
I have two suggestions.
Since I know you to be a very good programmer with a very good
knowledge of how things work under OS X, I suggest going straight to
Apple and pitching the idea of developing CamelBones for them. It
could work out quite well if the arrangement is crafted
40 matches
Mail list logo
