Can 10.4 apps be built with Obj-C 2.0?

  • I haven't installed Leopard because I'm in the middle of upgrading an
    app with a lot of 10.4 users and it has to run there.  So I just have
    a quick question - are any of the goodies useful for building 10.4
    compatible apps or should I stay where I am for awhile?
  • Sorry, you need to require Leopard to use ObjC 2.0.

    On Nov 5, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Todd Blanchard wrote:

    > I haven't installed Leopard because I'm in the middle of upgrading
    > an app with a lot of 10.4 users and it has to run there.  So I just
    > have a quick question - are any of the goodies useful for building
    > 10.4 compatible apps or should I stay where I am for awhile?
  • I've heard that properties will work on 10.4 in a program compiled on
    10.5, but I have not tested this myself.

    I would upgrade to Leopard just for IB3. IB3 has no issues building
    for Tiger.

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Nov 5, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard...> wrote:

    > I haven't installed Leopard because I'm in the middle of upgrading
    > an app with a lot of 10.4 users and it has to run there.  So I just
    > have a quick question - are any of the goodies useful for building
    > 10.4 compatible apps or should I stay where I am for awhile?
  • On Nov 5, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Colin Cornaby wrote:
    > I've heard that properties will work on 10.4 in a program compiled
    > on 10.5, but I have not tested this myself.
    >
    > I would upgrade to Leopard just for IB3. IB3 has no issues building
    > for Tiger.

    Use of Objective-C 2.0 features requires Leopard.  End of story.
    That some of the features *might* work *some of the time* on Tiger is
    coincidental and may change in future releases.

    Best not to risk it.

    b.bum
  • I believe it was said in a WWDC session that in since properties are
    macros that they would work in 10.4. Just saying that this was
    something communicated by Apple, not the result of someone just
    playing around with properties. :)

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Nov 5, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Bill Bumgarner <bbum...> wrote:

    > On Nov 5, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Colin Cornaby wrote:
    >> I've heard that properties will work on 10.4 in a program compiled
    >> on 10.5, but I have not tested this myself.
    >>
    >> I would upgrade to Leopard just for IB3. IB3 has no issues building
    >> for Tiger.
    >
    > Use of Objective-C 2.0 features requires Leopard.  End of story.
    > That some of the features *might* work *some of the time* on Tiger
    > is coincidental and may change in future releases.
    >
    > Best not to risk it.
    >
    > b.bum
    >
  • On Nov 5, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Colin Cornaby wrote:
    > I believe it was said in a WWDC session that in since properties are
    > macros that they would work in 10.4. Just saying that this was
    > something communicated by Apple, not the result of someone just
    > playing around with properties. :)

    That is incorrect.  Properties are not macros and have never been
    macros.    If you happen to write all code associated with a property
    manually, it may coincidentally work.  If you use @synthesize it is
    not going to work.

    b.bum
  • Thanks, I'll have to go back and review what was said at that session
    (it's on the developer iTunes TV thing). I never meant to dispute that
    it was not officially supported currently. I've never found the
    courage to try Obj C 2.0 stuff on Leopard myself. :)

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Nov 5, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bill Bumgarner <bbum...> wrote:

    > On Nov 5, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Colin Cornaby wrote:
    >> I believe it was said in a WWDC session that in since properties
    >> are macros that they would work in 10.4. Just saying that this was
    >> something communicated by Apple, not the result of someone just
    >> playing around with properties. :)
    >
    > That is incorrect.  Properties are not macros and have never been
    > macros.    If you happen to write all code associated with a
    > property manually, it may coincidentally work.  If you use
    > @synthesize it is not going to work.
    >
    > b.bum
    >
previous month november 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    
Go to today