On 1/10/02 2:50 PM, "Chris Thomas" <cjack / cjack.com> wrote:

>>> So, my question is:  Could RubyCocoa be used under GnuStep on Linux?
>>> I suspect that the answer is no right now,
> 
> In theory, it's possible to do this, but it would be a significant amount of
> work with things as they stand.
> 
> The big technical problem (assuming that GNUstep perfectly replicates the
> Cocoa API, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't currently) is that the GNU
> Objective-C runtime and the NeXT Objective-C runtime -- although
> conceptually related -- are completely different in both API and
> implementation.

I think this overstates. Foundation pretty much works. At least my code
works. AppKit has a long way to go. But the GNUStep folks express a desire
to close the gap in their mission statement. Of course the fact that
Foundation works is big deal for ObjC programmers and probably a don't care
for ruby programmers.

> I suspect you'll need to wait until GNUstep's interface is a bit closer to
> Cocoa, though.

It seems to depend. Apple claims in one of their tech notes that Cocoa is an
extension to the OpenStep API rather than a replacement for it and code that
conforms strictly to the OpenStep API should port. Some of the folks on the
Mac oriented lists, particularly Cocoa Dev, have asserted that this is
mostly true. 

> (BTW, A "fat binary" in Mac OS X parlance is a binary archive that contains
> one Mach-O file for each CPU architecture that the developer wants to
> support. Linux uses ELF executables, not Mach-O, so fat binary support is
> not helpful for this purpose.)

This may be getting OT for a Ruby list but I find it really interesting. I
don't understand ELF but I've been told it's very close to PEF which is
supported in MOSX through a vector library. Wouldn't the same technique work
for ELF? How did OPENSTEP support multiple executable formats?
-- 
Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham
Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)