GSoC idea for the binary issue (yet again)

Erik Österlund fisksvett at
Mon Mar 28 06:52:36 PDT 2011

Mar 28, 2011 kl. 10:29 AM skrev Anders F Björklund:

> Actually, the suggestion to do it in Tcl was because that it
> would be *easier* since it could re-use a lot of existing code.
> It probably has to wrap Tcl anyway, for ports and for registry,
> so you might end up doing it twice (like in MacPorts.framework).
> But if you want to go ahead with the MP "conversion" to Obj-C,
> like has already started with the MP GUI, then go right ahead.
> That goes for pkg(1) as well as for port(1), even if neither is
> required to be converted to Objective-C and you might need both. 
> i.e. my recommendation would be to implement it in Tcl first,
> and then convert to Objective-C for the speed/size improvement ?
> It should still be using the "same" MacPorts API, either way...
> Sometimes the Tcl version sticks around, like base or "DPGUI"*.

MacPorts.framework seems to allow me to access the registry and the basic stuff I need, so I don't think there is a need for TCL stuff. I like doing things right from the start so I'd go for implementing it in Objective-C from the start. If there were things not supported in MacPorts.framework that I need, I would extend MacPorts.framework to handle that or stick to TCL for that part.

The language thing will probably not be too significant anyway, and whatever language I go for, it'll probably be just fine. These details I think are of less importance.

Also I love Objective-C and really want to get this stuff going!

- Fisk

More information about the macports-dev mailing list