On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Kahunapule Michael Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Little wrote: >> We post Windows binaries because most Windows users don't have a >> compiler. We don't post Linux binaries because most Linux users _do_ >> have a compiler (or could get one quickly and easily). I don't >> actually know whether Macs come with I compiler or not. > > The vast majority of Mac users would not even consider compiling a > program. A compiler comes with the OS disk, but it is not installed by > default. Require compilation to use a program, and it just won't get > used much, except by a very small number of programmers. Even those > would probably rather have a binary properly packaged.
This might be a perfect example of where a GUI for the tools would be ideal. Mac users like everything to be right in front of their face and a simple 1 or 2 step drag-n-drop process. If a little app bundle could be put together with just a minimal front-end that allows users to drop in a module file, click one or two options, and have the program call the utilities (which are included in the app bundle), I think that would be the most natural method for a Mac user to create a module. --Greg > > >> Will we have to worry about universal binaries when we build on the >> command line? > > Probably, but I'm guessing the default setting is probably to build a > universal binary. That is just a guess. I actually have a MacBook, but > have yet to actually compile anything on it except in the Ubuntu Linux > running in a virtual machine on it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
