3 ms·
It feels like if they really wanted to go for the original Mac philosophy, it might've made more sense to use something like GNUStep as the base instead of Qt.
by malermeister 4y ago
It feels like if they really wanted to go for the original Mac philosophy, it might've made more sense to use something like GNUStep as the base instead of Qt.
There's even some precedent, but it never really took off: http://etoileos.com/etoile/ http://etoileos.com/etoile/
- kitsunesoba 4y agoIIRC the problem with GNUStep is that it got stuck at a version of Objective-C and Cocoa/AppKit roughly equivalent with that of OS X 10.6 and would take a lot of work to even catch up to modern Obj-C and Cocoa, let alone get Swift integrated into.
- pjmlp 4y agoWhich proves the point that this project will never be the Mac philosophy.
- tgv 4y agoThe mac (nextstep?) philosophy contains at least building blocks for common UX tasks, Cocoa, which gradually grew over the various versions of OS X. I remember being quite astonished about what you could do with an array controller or two: parts of the UI practically wrote themselves. And it was all consistent across apps. "Qt on FreeBSD" simply isn't the same, even though it may have copied the rounding and color of the buttons. I get that GNUStep simply isn't there, and will never be, but this looks like three raccoons in a trench coat.
- malermeister 4y agoYeah I feel like this project should've tried to get GNUStep to a usable state instead of putting a skin on top of Qt.