Re: [gtk-list] Re: Objective-C binding

[Gregor Hoffleit <flight mathi uni-heidelberg DE>]

Elliot Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Helge Hess wrote:
> 
> > It's entirely based on the Object class and the structure build up by
> > this.  While obgtk may be up to date by means of gtk+ functionality I
> > suppose very few people are using the Object class nowadays. 
> > 
> > With the NSObject root class several new principles of design and
> > conventions of writing code were introduced. There is a rich library of
> > Objective-C classes specified in the OpenStep specification. Of one
> > part of this, the FoundationKit, exist good free implementations like
> > gstep-base and libFoundation. 
> 
> We do not want to require gnustep in order to use Gnome... Your last
> paragraph sounds like it's full of marketing lingo. Object works fine - I
> do not want another C++, I just want a simple OO framework. :-)
> 
> I'm not trying to discourage you from making GtkKit or whatever (and
> being able to make GNUstep apps consistent with Gtk apps would be neat),
> but at the same time it's not going to be practical for a lot of people -
> GNUstep is a whole new can of worms ;-]

The FoundationKit specification (with its free implementations gstep-base and libFoundation) is more like a libstdc++ or libg++; a foundation of basic classes like lists, sets, etc. pp. (only more reasonable than lib*++ ;-). I doubt that you can write a reasonable big ObjC application without using that kind of classes, but then, obgtk's users are free to reinvent the wheel.

Anyway, libFoundation and gstep-base can be used without GNUstep. You don't have to open any other can. Furthermore, both libFoundation and gstep-base are quite complete and stable.

Once again, think of FoundationKit as something really unrelated to GNUstep; then you're free to reject it due to its size, but please not for its use in GNUstep.

	Gregor