log in | register | forums


User accounts
Register new account
Forgot password
Forum stats
List of members
Search the forums

Advanced search
Recent discussions
- PinBoard 2.05 released (News:2)
- Rougol Talk July 2024 - Nathan Atkinson (News:2)
- Rougol July 2024 meeting on monday (News:2)
- Sunday coding session with Gerph on Sunday (News:1)
- Livestream coding session with Gerph this sunday (News:2)
- WROCC July 2024 meeting - Draw/ROD double bill (News:)
- WROCC July 2024 meeting on... Hughes and Peter Richmond (News:)
- July developer 'fireside' chat is on saturday night (News:)
- June 2024 News Summary (News:)
- Gerph's live coding session on Youtube (News:4)
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
View on Mastodon
Site Search
Article archives
The Icon Bar: The Playpen: The whole porting thing...
  The whole porting thing...
  MikeCarter (20:04 14/9/2006)
  Phlamethrower (20:20 14/9/2006)
    jmb (20:31 14/9/2006)
      jmb (21:35 14/9/2006)
Mike Message #80174, posted by MikeCarter at 20:04, 14/9/2006

Posts: 401
After seeing Monkeysons post [in the Fresco thread] on porting is it realy worth porting? It apears more effort has to be put into porting that writing a program from scratch.

Thats my view anyway.

[Edited by MikeCarter at 20:05, 14/9/2006]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
Jeffrey Lee Message #80181, posted by Phlamethrower at 20:20, 14/9/2006, in reply to message #80174
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15100
Depends on the program.

For command line tools, I'm happy with using ports, and ports are often easy to produce.

But for GUI apps things get a lot more complicated, and even if porting GUI apps was easy (and they had decent performance compared to a native implementation) I'd still rather see GUI apps developed from scratch for RISC OS (To keep them consistent with the RISC OS look & feel, etc.)

And I should say that ports of command line apps are often easy to produce because of the great work that's gone into UnixLib & GCCSDK, despite the neverending filename translation problems and the fact they provide incentives to port software instead of write from scratch :P

[Edited by Phlamethrower at 20:25, 14/9/2006]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
JMB Message #80186, posted by jmb at 20:31, 14/9/2006, in reply to message #80181
Posts: 467
There's also the case of hybrids (such as NetSurf) which utilise a number of libraries that were originally written for other platforms to do various things but do the vast majority of the work themselves (along with having a native UI).

It's worth pointing out that some of the libraries that the NetSurf team developed in order to make their lives easier are being used by a number of other bits of RO software (including ChoX11 and hence the Firefox port). All of which means that there's the beginnings of some sensible cooperation between different RO-related projects, even if the OS developers aren't cooperating.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
JMB Message #80190, posted by jmb at 21:35, 14/9/2006, in reply to message #80186
Posts: 467
One other thing which I didn't state explicitly (but should have been self-evident) is that things developed by the GCCSDK team have also made the NetSurf developers' lives easier, so the cooperation goes both ways.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]

The Icon Bar: The Playpen: The whole porting thing...