search for: dobject

...e to create a runtime for PS3 and XBox that seems trivial as the functions are very basic in nature. My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a std c++ library object (e.g. std::basic_string or std::v...

...ime for PS3 and XBox that seems trivial as the functions are very basic in nature. >> >> My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a std c++ library object (e.g. std::basic_string or std::v...

...e a runtime for PS3 and XBox that seems trivial as the functions are very basic in nature. > > My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a std c++ library object (e.g. std::basic_string or std::v...

...x that seems trivial as the functions are very basic > in nature. > > My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that we > would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of > OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base > DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, etc. > Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to follow > the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free bridged"... > meaning we would implement them using a std c++ library object (e.g. >...

...>> very basic in nature. >>> >>> My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that >>> we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of >>> OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base >>> DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, >>> etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to >>> follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free >>> bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a std c++ &...

...n nature. >>>> >>>> My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that >>>> we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of >>>> OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base >>>> DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, >>>> etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to >>>> follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free >>>> bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a...

...PS3 and XBox that seems trivial as the functions are very basic in nature. >>> >>> My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a std c++ library object (e.g. std::basic_string or std::v...

llvm can output C code, but that target has bitrotted severely over the last few months and nobody seems to be interested in fixing it. You may need to do some work there. Alternatively you could implement the PPC ABI that you need. There are several examples of supporting multiple ABIs on the same hardware, x86 being the most obvious. A lot of simple stuff will probably Just Work with the

...XBox that seems trivial as the functions are very basic in nature. >>>> >>>> My comments on OpenStep were more meant to point to the fact that we would write our own library; really just throwing all notion of OpenStep away. Instead of NSObject we would create our own base DObject or something along with a DString, DAarry, DSet, DMap, etc. Truthfully this would be our plan anyway because we want to follow the lead of OSX and provide these objects "toll free bridged"... meaning we would implement them using a std c++ library object (e.g. std::basic_string or std::v...

We are looking at using Objective-C/C++ in a new game engine.  Objective C's duality of being both very dynamic and very "C" gives us exactly what we need to make the SDK and engineering of games simpler. This means that we will need a way to compile it on all platforms our games will target.  Currently the major platforms we are concerned with include... PC, Mac, XBox 360, PS3,