Source code for debugging

  • As anyone who has used .Net knows, it's a nice programming environment with
    good APIs.

    Here is one more thing to make me more likely to choose it for future
    projects. Microsoft has announced that they'll be including source code for
    .Net.

    http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing
    -the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx

    If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other APIs, I
    can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one or more
    days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

    In almost every case, access to the source code for DEFINITIVE documentation
    (code) would have allowed me to spend my time on something productive
    instead.

    In the few times I've had a chance to use WebKit, the source has proved
    invaluable to tracking down strange bugs.
  • On Oct 4, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Mac Developer wrote:

    > If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
    > APIs, I
    > can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
    > or more
    > days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

    File a bug report at <http://bugreport.apple.com/>. Good luck.

    Nick Zitzmann
    <http://www.chronosnet.com/>
  • On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Mac Developer wrote:

    > As anyone who has used .Net knows, it's a nice programming
    > environment with
    > good APIs.

    Not exactly true.  I've used .Net, don't care much for the programming
    environment and would describe the APIs as... adequate.
    >
    > Here is one more thing to make me more likely to choose it for future
    > projects. Microsoft has announced that they'll be including source
    > code for
    > .Net.
    >
    > http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing
    > -the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx

    Certainly an interesting choice.  Although, if a bit full of
    conspiracy theory, I suspect that the post at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2191754,00.asp
      probably has a kernel of truth.

    > If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
    > APIs, I
    > can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
    > or more
    > days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

    Yes.  And at the same time Apple would have given away it's "crown
    jewels" making them, for all intents and purposes mostly worthless.

    If pursuing that idea has merit for you, however, I would encourage
    you to pursue it farther in an appropriate forum.

    Scott
  • > If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
    > APIs, I
    > can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
    > or more
    > days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

      Might I suggest future posts contain less rant and more technical
    relevance? This strongly paints you as little more than a troll.

    --
    I.S.
  • Honestly, it looks like they're starting off by doing the equivalent
    of open-sourcing Core Foundation (the Base Class Libraries). Which
    Apple did years ago via Darwin.

    Although it'll be interesting to see how much of WPF actually makes
    it to open-source :)

    On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Scott Thompson wrote:

    >
    > On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Mac Developer wrote:
    >
    >> As anyone who has used .Net knows, it's a nice programming
    >> environment with
    >> good APIs.
    >
    > Not exactly true.  I've used .Net, don't care much for the
    > programming environment and would describe the APIs as... adequate.
    >>
    >> Here is one more thing to make me more likely to choose it for future
    >> projects. Microsoft has announced that they'll be including source
    >> code for
    >> .Net.
    >>
    >> http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing
    >> -the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx
    >
    > Certainly an interesting choice.  Although, if a bit full of
    > conspiracy theory, I suspect that the post at http://www.eweek.com/
    > article2/0,1759,2191754,00.asp probably has a kernel of truth.
    >
    >
    >> If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
    >> APIs, I
    >> can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
    >> or more
    >> days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.
    >
    > Yes.  And at the same time Apple would have given away it's "crown
    > jewels" making them, for all intents and purposes mostly worthless.
    >
    > If pursuing that idea has merit for you, however, I would encourage
    > you to pursue it farther in an appropriate forum.
    >
    > Scott
  • On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Mac Developer wrote:

    > If source were available for Cocoa and QuickTime and various other
    > APIs, I
    > can think of dozens of times over the past year where I wasted one
    > or more
    > days due to poorly documented, buggy, or incomplete APIs from Apple.

    [moerator] This isn't directly related to Cocoa development issues.
    Rather it is an advocacy issue. The list has been over it before. Best
    take the discussion elsewhere or to contact Apple directly with these
    types of questions ,and file Radar enhancement request.

    Ultimately, if the doc is poor, that is the easiest thing to fix (far
    easier than getting the source published). File a bug, we pay
    attention to them.
previous month october 2007 next month
MTWTFSS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Go to today