What is the point of this group ?

What is the point of this group ?

Post by David Ste » Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:12:24




>> One last issue about which you can all pointlessly argue.  How should I
>> license and distribute my Objective-C pre-processor.  I am tempted to craft
>> a license that allows any use as long as the software in never used in
>> Belgium :(

> What's wrong with Belgium?

POC is written in Belgium.

See http://users.pandora.be/stes/compiler.html

 
 
 

What is the point of this group ?

Post by Christian Brunsch » Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:25:12




Quote:>What is the point of this group given that it seems every thread degenerates
>in to a flame war between one prolific troll and all of the other people in
>the group ?  Once again, one troll seems to have reduced an entire group to
>uselessness or am I misinterpreting what goes on here ?  I check in once a
>month or so to see what has been going on and the same handful of pointless
>debates rage on and on and on.  I can find five year old threads that are
>being rehashed again today and the participants are the same people and the
>same one troll.  The only thing this group really discusses is mental
>illness.

>Is anyone getting useful information from this group ?

Actually, occasionally yes.

Quote:>Is anyone getting questions answered ?

Occasionally, yes.

Quote:>Is anyone benefiting from a community in which to share an interest ?

>I am sorry to rant, but I am frustrated because I sometimes want to discuss
>Objective-C, and it is clear to me that this forum is useless for that
>purpose.

... because of the endless debates between the troll and the rest of the
world, yes.

Quote:>For example, I have a working Objective-C pre-processor plug-in for
>Microsoft Visual C++ that allows development of Objective-C software within
>that IDE ?  

Wow, that sounds really cool!

Quote:>I also have an all C runtime implemented as a Windows dll.  

Is this runtime Windows-specific? Just asking :)

Quote:>I
>might like to discuss it with folks, but I can't do it here.  

Why not? I'd love to see Objective-C become more easily available on
Windows. While I don't particularly like Windows myself, I know that many
many people use it, and if I could use one of my favourite languages more
easily there, that would be a good thing.

Quote:>Let the flames begin!

Well, you will get no flames from me:

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for doing anything on a Windows platform.

I don't like Windows. Reality, however, is that Windows is out there and
is a huge platform with a vast user base, so I consider good Objective-C
support on Windows to be a Good Thing(TM).

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for using an IDE at all.

IDE:s are fine; raw command-line compiler-invocation is _so_ 20th century
:)

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for using the VC++ IDE in particular.

Again, I don't personally use VC++, but it's a platform that many people
do use and are familiar with, and if Objective-C became an option for use
within VC++, well, then perhaps some VC++ users might be tempted to try
Objective-C som time. Another Good Thing(TM).

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for supporting categories and protocols

I like Categories and Protocols!

Quote:>and being
>compatible with the gcc runtime but not based on it.

Nothing wrong with having a runtime that's not based on an existing one,
as long as it offers the same functionality. Also, I can think of good
reasons not to want to base your runtime on GPL:ed code.

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for including implementations of both Object and
>NSObject and not making NSObject a subclass of Object.

As we know, Objective-C allows multiple root classes. Object is an older
one but still in use, whereas NSObject is a newer and more modern one, and
these days in even more widespread use. And the usual reasons for neither
being a subclass of the other (i.e., the fact that they essentially
implement the same functionality, but with different APIs so that
inheritance would actually be more in the way than anything else) still
apply. So, no flames here.

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for supporting any number of base classes and actually
>providing several including Protocol and NSProxy.

Huh? All the other Objective-C compilers support multiple root classes,
even POC. There should be noone flaming you for this.

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for optionally generating C++ code form Objective-C
>instead of only generating C.

Why would you be flamed for that? You're building your Objective-C
front-end to run with a C++ back-end. Might as well use all the
capabilties of your back-end!

Quote:>I expect to be flamed for liking and encouraging the use
>of -retain, -release, and -autorelease as well as NSAutoreleasePool.

You'll catch no flames from me for this either.

Quote:>I'll check back in a few weeks and count the flames.  Have fun if that is
>what it is...

>One last issue about which you can all pointlessly argue.  How should I
>license and distribute my Objective-C pre-processor.  

My personal preference would be for something like the BSD or X11
licenses. A combination of the GPL (for your compiler) and the LGPL (for
the runtime, so it doesn't infect all the code that happens to use it), or
even just going LGPL for the whole thing, might be another alternative.

You could also look at licenses like the Aladdin one (for Ghostscript), or
the Perl Artistic License.

As you can see, my suggestion would be for you to release it under some
kind of Open Source or Free Software license :)

Quote:>I am tempted to craft
>a license that allows any use as long as the software in never used in
>Belgium :(

*heh* No comment :)

Best wishes,

// Christian Brunschen

 
 
 

What is the point of this group ?

Post by Friedrich Dominicu » Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:08:03



> > For example, I have a working Objective-C pre-processor plug-in for
> > Microsoft Visual C++ that allows development of Objective-C software
> within
> > that IDE ?  I also have an all C runtime implemented as a Windows dll.  I
> > might like to discuss it with folks, but I can't do it here.  Let the
> flames
> > begin!

> Very cool. I imagine that a few people here would be interested in checking
> that out (me, for one). Writing Objective-C on Windows with an adequate IDE
> would be pretty cool.

Well I at least find that intersting. We were considering extending
our tools to support Objective-C too. Objective-C is really massivly
underestimated. I wish Objective-C == C++, will say that instead of
using this ugly C++ people would uses Objective-C.
Quote:

> > One last issue about which you can all pointlessly argue.  How should I
> > license and distribute my Objective-C pre-processor.  I am tempted to
> craft
> > a license that allows any use as long as the software in never used in
> > Belgium :(

> Well, if you really want my input, I'd say use an open source license that
> allows commercial exploitation (i.e. not the GPL).  That gives you the best
> chance of having people actually use it. I don't think the market for
> Objective-C preprocessors (or non-mainstream languages in general) is strong
> enough to make a business out of it.

Well I for my part have used Objective-C mainly on Apple OS X. It
would be really bummer if one would have the chance to port the whole
framework to support "windows" programming, suddenly the marke is
quite a bit larger I assume...

In one of my dreams I would write Objective-C and my program would run
"eveywhere"....

Regards
Friedrich

 
 
 

What is the point of this group ?

Post by David Ste » Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:07:21



> In one of my dreams I would write Objective-C and my program would run
> "eveywhere"....

Objective-C is very portable.

For example, the Portable Object Compiler (POC) is a set of Objective-C
libraries that can be used on many Unix and non-Unix platforms.

See http://users.pandora.be/stes/compiler.html