My point was simply that David may have some specific facts with
respect to how he developed the library which were important. As you
can see, he did.
Nevertheless, now that everyone has had a chance to weigh in, I don't
see any point in continuing this thread.
Later, GC
On Tuesday, September
В Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:58:20 +0100, David Chisnall написа:
GNU ObjC
has so few users that it seems hardly worth the effort to upgrade the
GNU ObjC front end to ObjC 2.0. And there are other issues:
Translation: The GNU project doesn't care about GNUstep.
Wrong.
A plea for help has been at a
Seach : Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00151
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
On 13 Sep 2010, at 10:38, Vincent Richomme wrote:
Seach : Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00151
I think you and I have different definitions of 'interesting' - a load of posts
by people who aren't lawyers discussing legal matters
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:58:20 +0100, David Chisnall
sqdqdq...@qsdqsdqd.org wrote:
On 13 Sep 2010, at 10:38, Vincent Richomme wrote:
Seach : Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00151
I think you and I have different definitions of
On 13 Sep 2010, at 13:53, Vincent Richomme wrote:
GNU ObjC has so few users that it seems hardly worth the effort
In the same time do you have an idea of how many people are interested
in gnustep ?
I would be very curious to know it.
DO you some some fugures ?
I've absolutely no idea. I
On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:08 AM, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org wrote:
On 13 Sep 2010, at 13:53, Vincent Richomme wrote:
GNU ObjC has so few users that it seems hardly worth the effort
In the same time do you have an idea of how many people are
interested
in gnustep ?
I would be very
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Pete French p...@twisted.org.uk wrote:
In practical terms that stance doesn't exactly lead to us ending up with
a good complier though does it? Clang is a v.good compiler, and is being
maintained. Not supporting it is rather biting off our nose to spite
our
GNU ObjC has so few users that it seems hardly worth the effort to upgrade
the
GNU ObjC front end to ObjC 2.0. And there are other issues:
Translation: The GNU project doesn't care about GNUstep.
The GNU project is a lot of people. One person on the GCC mailing list wasn't
interested in
I'm not condemning GCC for its stance. C and C++ are definitely much more
popular languages than Objective-C,
and I wouldn't blame them if they decided to completely drop Objective-C
support. No one's really worked on it
for around 7 years and the code that they inherited from NeXT is
Andrew,
Well, it seems like Nicola has stepped up to the plate and others are
willing to help him, myself included.
The reality of the situation here is that Apple drives Objective-C's
development. Apple has the benefit of having many employees who are
being paid to build their implementation
Not to spark a flame war here, but I've had some serious questions in
my mind as to the GCC project's ability or willingness to help since
the project seems entirely focused on endlessly improving the C, C++
and Fortran front-ends and doesn't work on ObjC at all.
I think GCC has been really
Nicola,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Nicola Pero
nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com wrote:
Not to spark a flame war here, but I've had some serious questions in
my mind as to the GCC project's ability or willingness to help since
the project seems entirely focused on endlessly improving the
Nicola,
I believe what you're saying here about David's libobjc2 runtime is
just as much FUD as what he said about GCC's ObjC. He should discuss
this with you further, but I don't think we have a problem here.
GC
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Nicola Pero
nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com
They have entire testsuites that test the languages, and make no changes
that ever break it. It's remarkable how hard they support it given that
none of them uses it. ;-)
I'd like to see when that code was written
Ehm, actually I wrote the original GCC Objective-C testsuite myself. ;-)
Of
greg.casame...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, 13 September, 2010 21:23
To: Nicola Pero nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com
Cc: David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org, gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Interesting discussion on gcc about objc
Nicola,
I believe what you're saying here about David's libobjc2 runtime is
just
Casamento greg.casame...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, 13 September, 2010 21:23
To: Nicola Pero nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com
Cc: David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org, gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Interesting discussion on gcc about objc
Nicola,
I believe what you're saying here about David's
Nicola,
I believe the fundamental mistake you're making here lays in the claim
that it's derived in the first place
As the person making the assertion that it is, you do, in fact, need
to discuss this with David.
David started with libobjc and made changes. For me that is the definition
If you start from scratch (ie, no
pre-existing codebase), that is the definition of a new work.
Well, according to David, he started its new runtime from scratch.
Quoting http://60gp.ovh.net/~dromasof/etoile/blog/ :
This, and the difficulty in supporting Objective-C 2.0 on the GNU
runtime
Nicola,
I won't be drawn into this discussion with you as only David knows the
specifics.
I also don't want you to spread FUD on this subject while refusing to
discuss it with the person you're accusing.
Whether it's legal or not depends on the specifics of how it was
done and only David knows
Well, according to David, he started its new runtime from scratch.
Quoting http://60gp.ovh.net/~dromasof/etoile/blog/ :
This, and the difficulty in supporting Objective-C 2.0 on the GNU
runtime caused me to write a new one from scratch.
The first subversion logs for libobjc2 states:
Added
Nicola/Simon,
I see no value in discussing this in David's absence. Please allow
him to respond to these concerns when he can reply on the list.
Thanks, GC
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nicola Pero
nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com wrote:
Well, according to David, he started its new
The first subversion logs for libobjc2 states:
Added new runtime library, based on GCC 4.4 libobjc, libobjc_tr and
Objective2.framework.
You may also want to look at that revision, r28632, which shows that libobjc2
was initially
the libobjc runtime with a few minor tweaks.
Before you
If you're asking me I would say it's very unfair to make an assertion
regarding someones work, then back out of/refuse to participate in the
discussion which results.
On Monday, September 13, 2010, Nicola Pero
nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com wrote:
The first subversion logs for libobjc2 states:
If you're asking me I would say it's very unfair to make an assertion
regarding someones work, then back out of/refuse to participate in the
discussion which results.
I have nothing more to contribute than what is in the following comments --
The first subversion logs for libobjc2 states:
On 13 Sep 2010, at 22:24, Gregory Casamento wrote:
If you're asking me I would say it's very unfair to make an assertion
regarding someones work, then back out of/refuse to participate in the
discussion which results.
Not really when it's a simple statement of fact which anyone interested
26 matches
Mail list logo
