[image: Mailtrack] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&;> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&;> 11/01/19, 11:59:15 AM
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:02 AM 陈北宗 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It is extremely naive to expect that macOS/iOS developers will start > > coming in numbers, anxious to implement classes and missing > > functionality, just because of that. GNUstep predates the thing > > called "Objective-C 2.0" and I don't remember an avalanche of patches > > flowing in before 2005. > > > There is no point putting up a barrier too. One of the best selling point > of GNUstep was “your whole existing codebase for a modern Mac OS X app is > simply one recompile away from being useable on a lot of different > computers” since it was almost 100% code compatible with Mac OS X back in > the time. Now GNUstep has fell out of sync with macOS, this selling point > is failing. This can result in GNUstep being reduced to a mere academic > curiosity. > This is not true. GNUstep has never been in sync with macOS. Apple is a billion dollar company with nothing but time to enhance the APIs. It's more than just Foundation and AppKit now and even those are difficult to keep up with. That being said I am working hard to get GNUstep base/Foundation up to date with the current release. I have about 15 classes left to implement at this point. As of “Objective-C 2.0”, that was mostly compile-time changes made when > Apple switched from GCC to LLVM/clang. Should there be an influx of patches > for that, most of them would head towards GCC not GNUstep. True. Many people make the mistake of thinking GNUstep is responsible for this. -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com http://ind.ie/phoenix/
