CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 j

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 a

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 wel

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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. Again

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 finding a new use for these gadgets. Games could

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Gisle Aas wrote: Why would it be painful to compile perl and its modules as a fat binaries? *If* Apple compiles a fat perl ... and *if* that fat perl doesn't require me to buy an Intel/Mac with money I don't have ... and *if* that fat perl is configured properly t

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

They say misery loves company - so here it is: "Python on Mac OS X for Intel is not going to be a seamless transition." sherm-- Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: htt

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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.

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 ma

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

> "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 d

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

"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 a market that Apple c

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 mod

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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. Apple

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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.

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 nas

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 >> an

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

> "Ian" == Ian Ragsdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> Is there any reason you would NEED to compile it fat? Does anybody Ian> expect that the same partition will boot on both x386 and PowerPC macs? The problem is distribution. If I want to upload my Cocoa program that happens to have Per

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 th

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 ->

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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-- Cocoa

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 progr

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 still

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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.

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 d

RE: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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. > > T

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 interesti

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

--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 t

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

Hi Sherm. For those who don't know me, I'm the perl maintainer at Apple, and I admit I keep a low profile on this list. But I wanted clear up a few things: On Jun 7, 2005, at 3:32 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Gisle Aas wrote: Why would it be painful to compile pe

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 py

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 hard

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

On Jun 8, 2005, at 12:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 3:32 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote: and *if* that fat perl doesn't require me to buy an Intel/Mac with money I don't have ... I forget which session it was in, but it said you can build both ppc and i386 on both platforms.

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 standalon

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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,

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

--- 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 no

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 -- Ch

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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 a

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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.

Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.

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.

OT: no shine (Re: CamelBones on Intel? Maybe not.)

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