Re: Thoughts about GNUstep

I think an alternative to dropping GCC could be for someone who needs libobcj2 packaging to reach out, work with Debian or other distributions to package libobjc2, and get package flavors going for that.

I'm personally making my own solutions so that I won't need to rely on distributions or packaging. This is one such solution that is a bit of a science experiment but indicative of where I would like to go.

https://marketstep.github.io

I can quickly produce thousands of these with a re-usable workflow with no code changes. This of course applies to only non GNUstep apps, but makes them work and feel like native apps should. I have similar thoughts, ideas for GNUstep apps. I am trying to port a few macOS apps to GNUstep showcase that idea as well here. It's an example how I am strategically working towards different solutions vs trying to pursue changes in GNUstep itself that would take away options from people who want to use it differently. I lean towards more options is always better myself vs taking away options. But I can understand that everyone has different needs and that is not so easy for some.

Joseph Maloney

Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) secure email.

On Sunday, May 3rd, 2026 at 11:27 AM, Sebastian Reitenbach <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 5:20 PM Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 10:49 PM Michael Rans <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> At this point, the developer may lose interest and look for something else. So in my view, the clang version of the libraries should be the default on all distros with the gcc version as an option.
>>
>> Agreed, and this IS our fault. Some people might argue that this shouldn't matter, but I, personally, think that it is very important for us to either get ObjC2.0 into GCC *OR* drop support for it entirely. Dropping support is difficult, politically, since we ARE a GNU project.
>
> Perhaps it shouldn't be framed as 'dropping support,' but rather as 'prioritizing progress.'
> Sometimes, shedding legacy constraints is the only way to move a project forward. By making Objective-C 2.0 and the Clang/LLVM toolchain the primary focus, it will signal that GNUstep is a modern, evolving platform. If GCC support becomes temporarily non-functional as a result, it shifts the impetus to the GCC community to modernize their Objective-C implementation. As long as GNUstep continues to bend over backwards to support an outdated runtime, it remove any incentive for GCC to improve.
>
> just my 2 cents on that topic.
> cheers,
> Sebastian
> --
>
> https://buzzdeee.reitenba.ch