Re: Installing GNUstep

[Edwin Ancaer]

Hello Simon,

I'm not the expert at it, but I used the instructions at
http://etoileos.com/downloads/installtrunk/, and they worked for me.

Of course, I have my own agenda mentioning Etoile here: they have this
thing called
Pragmatic Smalltalk, and I would like to see at least some more examples of
how to build applications with it. Maybe they notice this ?

But as I said, I think their build instructions will give you what you
need.

Kind regards,

2016-12-02 0:00 GMT+01:00 Simon Gornall :

> So, I have a fresh new Centos 7 system, and I’m looking at the best way to
> install GNUstep. There’s a lot of information out there, but I’m not sure
> what the “best practices” way to do it is, to get a modern libObjc2
> runtime, and compiling with clang.
>
> Is there a definitive site with instructions for this ? There used to be
> rpm files to install everything but those seem to have been linked to an
> older, and now non-supported linux version.
>
> Thanks for any advice :)
>
> Simon
> ___
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>
___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Installing GNUstep

[Simon Gornall]

So, I have a fresh new Centos 7 system, and I’m looking at the best way to 
install GNUstep. There’s a lot of information out there, but I’m not sure what 
the “best practices” way to do it is, to get a modern libObjc2 runtime, and 
compiling with clang.

Is there a definitive site with instructions for this ? There used to be rpm 
files to install everything but those seem to have been linked to an older, and 
now non-supported linux version.

Thanks for any advice :)

Simon
___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[Luboš Doležel]

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 know of three different Foundation 
implementations (GNUstep, one for FreeBSD that makes heavy use of kqueue, and 
WinObjC) that use all use the GNUstep Objective-C runtime, which provides a 
superset of the features that Apple provides.

David


I second this. I fail to see the benefits of yet another runtime...

Luboš




smime.p7s
Description: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[Steven R. Baker]

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’ did you not 
> understand?  If Apple stopped contributing to LLVM and Clang then:
I understand the statement perfectly, and it's the basis of my concern. :(

-Steven


___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf]

> 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
>> 
>> some more background information is available here:
>> 
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13042199
> 
> nice news and nice work! Wonderful that somebody still has interest in 
> Objective-C.
> 
> I see interesting choices in your runtine... It looks mostly an evolutive 
> step of classic Objective-C without the uglyness of Objective-C 2.0 which 
> then became Swift and which took the verve away from Objective.C
> You decided not to pursue the horrible dot notation, for example. It looks 
> something linke version 1.5, although that would mean an intermediate step: 
> better another name, since it will never become 2.0, but more a parallel, 
> different direction.
> 
> I wonder whom it should appeal? Old-timers like me stick with obj-c "classic" 
> to be able to be compiler-independent and because it is essentially enough. 
> I'd like "new" things, but those would be quite hard to do and would perhaps 
> need both a new runtime and a new Foundation (e.g. I'd like to use inegtral 
> types as real objects, so not to have to convert from and to when using 
> NSArrays, more small-talk essentially.
> Those instead who love(d) Obj-C 2.0 either stick with it or jumped to Swift 
> because they just like the latest thing
> 
> 
> Anyway, interesting news!
> 
> Riccardo

Hi Riccardo,

I am not the creator of this, I am just the messenger. mulle-objc was created 
by the folks of Mulle-kybernetiK ( https://www.mulle-kybernetik.com/ ) 
especially Nat! ( n...@mulle-kybernetik.com ) if I am not mistaken.

regards,

Lars
___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[David Chisnall]

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 contributing to LLVM and Clang then:

- The effect on the overall community would be noticeable, but not 
insurmountable.

- The effect on Apple would be huge because maintaining a fork of LLVM / Clang 
is hugely expensive if you want to be able to take upstream changes

Please stop spreading FUD.  The LLVM ecosystem has several dozen large 
corporate stakeholders as well as hundreds of individual contributors.

David


___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[David Chisnall]

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 
implementations (GNUstep, one for FreeBSD that makes heavy use of kqueue, and 
WinObjC) that use all use the GNUstep Objective-C runtime, which provides a 
superset of the features that Apple provides.

David


___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[Matt Butch]

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 option for that. If it can get a good community behind it, even better. 

It feels like GNUstep has stagnated. I think part of that is its not that easy 
to install a recent build. Part of that is also the non-standard interface it 
supports which is wonky (at least on Ubuntu). 

Of course Mulle-Objc doesn’t even have Foundation ready yet, so it’ll be awhile 
til it gets great.

-Matt

> On Nov 28, 2016, at 15:32, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi 'Steppers,
> 
> 
> 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.ycombinator.com/item?id=13042199
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
>   Lars
> ___
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep


___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[Steven R. Baker]

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 are in Apple's own version of 
>> LLVM, and it'll be very desirable to depend on these new and hot features.
> This is simply not true.  Apple’s contributions, as a percentage of the 
> total, have been decreasing for the last five years.  It’s been several years 
> since they were responsible for over 50% of total development and they’re not 
> even the largest single contributor anymore (Google is).  Apple’s release 
> process for LLVM is to fork at a point from svn head, run a bunch of 
> additional tests, and backport any fixes from a specific branch.  This code 
> then appears on opensource.apple.com - occasionally it includes a few hacky 
> fixes for issues on Darwin that they haven’t upstreamed because upstream 
> won’t accept it until they tidy it up and do it properly.
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.

We've all seen this happen *many* times. And we'll see it again. And
some people will act surprised.

-Steven


___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[David Chisnall]

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'll be very desirable to depend on these new and hot features.

This is simply not true.  Apple’s contributions, as a percentage of the total, 
have been decreasing for the last five years.  It’s been several years since 
they were responsible for over 50% of total development and they’re not even 
the largest single contributor anymore (Google is).  Apple’s release process 
for LLVM is to fork at a point from svn head, run a bunch of additional tests, 
and backport any fixes from a specific branch.  This code then appears on 
opensource.apple.com - occasionally it includes a few hacky fixes for issues on 
Darwin that they haven’t upstreamed because upstream won’t accept it until they 
tidy it up and do it properly.

David


___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

Re: mulle-objc #MakeObjCGreatAgain

[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

some more background information is available here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13042199


nice news and nice work! Wonderful that somebody still has interest in 
Objective-C.


I see interesting choices in your runtine... It looks mostly an 
evolutive step of classic Objective-C without the uglyness of 
Objective-C 2.0 which then became Swift and which took the verve away 
from Objective.C
You decided not to pursue the horrible dot notation, for example. It 
looks something linke version 1.5, although that would mean an 
intermediate step: better another name, since it will never become 2.0, 
but more a parallel, different direction.


I wonder whom it should appeal? Old-timers like me stick with obj-c 
"classic" to be able to be compiler-independent and because it is 
essentially enough. I'd like "new" things, but those would be quite hard 
to do and would perhaps need both a new runtime and a new Foundation 
(e.g. I'd like to use inegtral types as real objects, so not to have to 
convert from and to when using NSArrays, more small-talk essentially.
Those instead who love(d) Obj-C 2.0 either stick with it or jumped to 
Swift because they just like the latest thing



Anyway, interesting news!

Riccardo

___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep