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
I've got a Perl CGI script that acts as a system browser.
For example, it can look at files and directories and say
interesting things about them. This works fine, as long as
the files are world-readable, but fails (because Apache runs
as 'www') as soon as the user wanders into private areas.
On 2005.6.7, at 11:51 PM, Rich Morin wrote:
I've got a Perl CGI script that acts as a system browser.
For example, it can look at files and directories and say
interesting things about them. This works fine, as long as
the files are world-readable, but fails (because Apache runs
as 'www') as
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
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Dubois) wrote:
Today ActiveState is announcing support for Mac OS X.
ActivePerl 5.8.7 for Mac OS X is now available for free download from:
http://www.ActiveState.com/Products/ActivePerl/
And besides, ActiveState will make sure
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Kogai) wrote:
What's gonna happen to XS?
--
It already uses .bundle so in theory it can handle multiple
architectures but in practice?
Dunno. I do know that building for multiple platforms worked with the same
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
Not sure whether this question is appropriate for this list if not, could
somebody please point me in the right direction? Thanks.
I have an Excel macro, developed with Excel 2000 for Windows, that
executes a Perl script using Win32 API calls (CreateProcessA(), etc.)
after creating a
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
From the la la la la, life goes on department:
Here's a preliminary patch against perl patchlevel 24717 to make
64bitall perl build on Mac OS 10.4.x (Darwin 8.x):
--- perl-current-64bitall/hints/darwin.sh-as-received2005-05-11
12:09:35.0 +0200
+++
On 7 Jun 2005, at 17:01, I wrote:
Here's a preliminary patch against perl patchlevel 24717 to make
64bitall perl build on Mac OS 10.4.x (Darwin 8.x):
Two additional test failures to add to the list when built with the
new compiler in just-released XCode Tools 2.1:
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
I was just wondering what the magic was that you saw in FORTH. My
understanding is that it is a very low level language.
Have you ever played with LISP?
Think of FORTH as LISP without parenthesis underneath everything,
except that it never developed enough of a following to develop its own
On 2005.6.8, at 04:24 AM, Lola Lee wrote:
John Delacour wrote:
Very nice and most welcome, though still not as easy as the Windows
installation. May I suggest that you include at least the
configuration notes in the distribution. Once I had returned to the
AS site and found the
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Chris Nandor wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Dubois) wrote:
Today ActiveState is announcing support for Mac OS X.
ActivePerl 5.8.7 for Mac OS X is now available for free download
from:
My big question, and one I didn't see clearly articulated on their site,
is why would you use this install?
any takers?
- brian
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, brian pink wrote:
My big question, and one I didn't see clearly articulated on their
site, is why would you use this install?
Some reasons I can come up with:
* You want to use the latest maintenance version of Perl and not wait
until Apple updates OS X. Panther ships
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
On 6/8/05 6:54 AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote on [OT] Re: FORTH
I was just wondering what the magic was that you saw in FORTH. My
understanding is that it is a very low level language.
Gee. I must have missed this one!
One upon a time, I worked with Forth quite a bit, even developing a few
I will be out of the office starting 06/04/2005 and will not return until
06/11/2005.
I will respond to your message when I return.
If you need a quicker response try the main office at 612-677-0758.
If this is urgent for me, contact me on my cell phone at 612-801-2396.
Jay Stadler
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
