Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: paullynch.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to paullynch.org.

Comments · 8

  1. Re: Well, someone has to ask... by tarzeau · · Score: 1 · on GNUstep Kickstarter Campaign Launched
    That's absolutely right, even today, GNUstep is 15 years ahead of KDE(qt) and GNOME(gtk). Look at the API's, try to write one single graphical app with qt or gtk. Compare the lines of code and time compared to develop the same graphical application made with GNUstep (or Xcode on Mac OS X) using the Cocoa API (which is nothing else but Foundation Kit and Application Kit).

    It isn't faster to code on NeXTstep; you just have to write less of it. The revolution is "getting rid of software". -- http://www.paullynch.org/NeXTSTEP/Savoy.1992.htmld/

  2. Re:Boot Camp by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1 · on Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game
    Personally, I find OS X to be inelegant and inconsistent. You have the Dock, where icons behave totally differently from any other icons anywhere else on the entire system, and where a whole bunch of totally different tasks -- launching applications, monitoring running tasks, etc. -- are all mixed together in one confusing zooming bouncing distracting usability nightmare.

    BTW- the Dock doesn't have to be set to zoom or bounce. I think control-clicking the thing brings up an options menu that allows you to change stuff.

    That being said, I much prefer the old NeXTSTEP user interface. Much cleaner looking and easier to use since icons for opened apps and application launchers are in different screen areas, unlike in the Dock which is one huge mish-mush. The only problem with classic NeXTSTEP is the lack of an ability to quickly drag-and-drop data files to the desktop, but then again, this makes for a cleaner-looking UI and NeXTSTEP has a file manager anyway.

    Try WindowMaker running under Linux or BSD to see what I mean.

    Cheers,
    -b.

  3. Re:Notice its C++ and not Objective-C by mrsbrisby · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Intel Software Development Products for OSX

    Its a shame that most of the new OS X dev work is done using Objective-C and not C++.

    I don't know that it would be a shame.

    Certainly, if C++ were the language of choice for Cocoa, it might make C++ users feel more encouraged to target Cocoa, but it wouldn't actually help them write code for Cocoa.

    The C++ interfaces for different display and widget systems are as different as the systems themselves- QT uses a "moc" C++ compiler that isn't even really C++ for signals and slots support- but encourages programmers to avoid tampering with the event loop, while Win32 encourages direct access with it.

    So maybe if "Cocoa++" were around, it might help QT programmers (as the "moc C++" was designed to add features that Objective-C has, but that C++ didn't (and still doesn't well...)), but it certainly wouldn't help Win32 programmers in the slightest- except in "feeling" like all they've got to learn is a new API instead of a new language.

    However, it may be better to point out that unlike the vast gap between C and C++ that makes them so distinctly different languages, Objective-C is a strict superset of C, in the sense that all C code is also Objective-C code. Apple also provides Objective-C++ which is a strict superset of C++, in the sense that all C++ code is also Objective-C++ code.

    Now, most proficient programmers have no problem picking up a new language in a matter of hours; and Objective-C is so completely straightforward that just diving in is bound to validate that.

    However, there are less-proficient programmers, and they tend to produce, sub-standard quality software. Given how much Cocoa software is of such high quality, it does beg the question: Is it the lack of poor programmers working in Objective-C, or is it that Objective-C is just that wonderful to use?

    Having a "Cocoa++" might answer that question definitively, but I simply cannot see how that would be a Good Thing.

  4. Re:C++ has its place by mrsbrisby · · Score: 1 · on Demise of C++?
    OK, good for you, you can spend an hour digging around to find the worst screen shot of your opponent and the best of your proponent. I've designed better.

    Again, subjective.

    My main tenent still stands: Cocoa only holds for Macs, which have a 5% market share. Who cares about 5%?

    This is a circular argument. GNUstep runs where Cocoa does not.

    The discussion is about C++.

    So why are you defending QT? It's applications aren't written in C++.

    Who cares about other programming languages (Java, Python).

    Now compare the 3 API's. wxWidgets and QT are skinnable. What about GNUstep? Nope.

    Wrong.

    "moc C++" OK I give you that. But its still a decent API to work with and a breeze to port.

    And GNUstep is a better API. It's also much more mature. ... and a breeze to port. As in, you do nothing to port it. (been there, done that)

    Wrong. C++ is incompatible with C, and moc C++ is incompatible with C++. In contrast, Objective-C is a pure superset of C (in other words: all C code is also Objective-C code), and Objective-C++ is a pure superset of C++ (in other words: all C++ code is also Objective-C++ code).

    "That's not subjective either."

    That part? No. It was just wrong.

    I saw no mention of wxWidgets or QT in there. Nice try.

    What are you babbling about?

    "QT works on less platforms than GNUstep,"
    Which begs the question... if GNUstep has plugins into Cairo, it must be missing that functionality (that Qt already has). Please respond:

    I don't think you know what "begs the question" means.

    If QT has plugins into Win32, it must be missing that functionality (that Win32 already has).

    GNUstep is a collection of many things, and yes, there is a significant amount of duplicated effort there. For example:

    GNUstep provides an "art" backend (which is often used on X11) because it supports the nfont system. This is quite a bit older than fontconfig, but these days, "everyone else" wants to use fontconfig, and to make integration easier, GNUstep supports fontconfig through its Cairo interface.

    The fact that GNUstep can please so many people on so many different targets in so many different languages on so many different platforms is part of MY point.

    The fact that QT is harder to use, targets less systems, supports fewer languages (and the primary one being obscure), and on less platforms doesn't help YOUR point: which is that C++ is more useful and more robust and Objective-C.

    So how is it that C++ is so useful and robust if it needs a preprocessor to make it usable in your preferred environment (QT)?

    You say Cocoa/Objective-C has 5% of the market, so you use QT. Do you have any idea what kind of penetration QT has? Are you so certain it's higher than MacOSX, GNUStep, OpenStep, and NeXTStep combined?
  5. Re:C++ has its place by mrsbrisby · · Score: 1 · on Demise of C++?

    GNUstep runs on X11, Cairo, Win32/GDI, and it can also be recompiled on MacOSX.

    WxWindows might be able to target lots of platforms, it just does none of them well.

    QT on the other hand, is written in a non-standard programming language ("moc C++") in an effort to add features available to Objective-C users for years. Better still: Programming Cocoa in Java or Python isn't anywhere near as unpleseant as writing WxWindows or QT applications in those languages. That's not subjective either.

    So being as how GNUstep spans multiple platforms and languages, while WXWindows spans the lowest-common-denominator of multiple platforms and languages, and QT works on less platforms than GNUstep, and in less languages, I'd say that you're completely wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.

    That said, I never knew anyone could actually say that this "looks better" than this, but you're welcome to be the first, and if that's how it is, at least I'm productive in the latter...

  6. Re:The Real Question is... by tarzeau · · Score: 1 · on GORM 1.0 Release to Take on GNOME/KDE?

    No, Afterstep is only a window manager, that is only working on X11. See here, what the OpenStep specification is about. While you do so, you might also read up the Savoy 1992, Booz-Allen Study results

  7. Re: OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Mad as Hell, Switching to Mac

    OS X rules because it is NeXT Step.

    Does this finder look familiar folks?
    http://www.paullynch.org/NeXTSTEP/NeXTSTEP.TechRev iew.html

    (but with MS Office, Photoshop, and Mozilla ported to it)

  8. Re:Fond memories working at NeXT by jweatherley · · Score: 5, Informative · on History Of The NeXT Platform
    could you PLEASE give me some examples while i hunt these developers down? anything at all, really, i just need a quick fix!

    Will this do?

    Here's some thoughts on NeXT for developers

    Sample quote - John Carmack:

    "We developed lots of products under dos (mostly borland c++), and never want to again. We went through five major iterations of our tools under DOS, and they are all junk below our first iteration of NS tools. You can't really just point at specific things and claim superiority. It is the complete package hat has the appeal. NS is the best tool I have found for MY development work."