[seppak]

I have programmed in cocoa quite a bit. If I wanted to do windows programming, what environment would you recommend. I'm looking for something that is easy like cocoa with a language like c++ or Java. I have spent a little time with Visual C++. It seemed much more complicated and would take a lot more time before being comfortable doing anything in it. Thanks for any suggestions.

[depolitic]

GNUStep objective-c on Linux and on Windows Via Cygwan. GNUMail is doen that way:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/14141

[seppak]

Is there any tutorial on this, what programs you need etc. I thought GNUStep was incomplete and doing the interfaces with nib files was impossible. Thanks for any help.

[depolitic]

http://gnustep.made-it.com/GSPT/xml/Tutorial_en.html

AND

http://www.gnustep.org/


Also just Google GNUStep

GNUStep is only a short step behind Apples Cocoa and they are always trying to be up to speed with Apple.

[Theodour]

Originally posted by seppak:
I have programmed in cocoa quite a bit. If I wanted to do windows programming, what environment would you recommend. I'm looking for something that is easy like cocoa with a language like c++ or Java. I have spent a little time with Visual C++. It seemed much more complicated and would take a lot more time before being comfortable doing anything in it. Thanks for any suggestions.

QT by Trolltech is crossplatform C++. However, it is complicated, though pretty amazing. It is more like Visual C++ than cocoa, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

There are precompiled binaries here.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Theodour:
QT by Trolltech is crossplatform C++. However, it is complicated, though pretty amazing.

It's Qt, not QT. The capitalisation is important to avoid namespace collisions (QT is QuickTime). And if by "complicated" you mean "ugly" and "amazing" you mean "expensive", then yeah, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Theodour]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
It's Qt, not QT. The capitalisation is important to avoid namespace collisions (QT is QuickTime). And if by "complicated" you mean "ugly" and "amazing" you mean "expensive", then yeah, I wholeheartedly agree.

Yeah, but you can also use the GPL version (free). And it is really beautiful (as in beauty, not bow tie) and amazing (as in a stunning acheivement of engineering), and also complicated -- but that is the fault of C++, not Trolltech.

Now, do you want to offer another solution, or just shoot more things down?

[Kristoff]

Why not just use Java?

If you write for the JVM, then (with reasonable ease) your application can run on virtually any platform.

If I had a dollar for every "I cater to the 95% market share" argument I've heard, I'd be on a beach in the South Pacific right now.

Fact is, if you write in Java, you cater to a larger market than 95%--closer to 100%.

[seppak]

I probably will use Java if I can't get GNUStep working. I have installed this, ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/gnustep/binaries/windows . However, I cannot figure out how to build ProjectCenter and Gorm. All of the tutorials I have found are for unix systems and assume you have a lot of prior knowledge with makefiles etc... Is there any tutorial which starts from scratch to having a working version of ProjectCenter and gorm. Also, if you build an application would it run on a clean install of windows without gnustep installed? thanks.

[hayesk]

Originally posted by Kristoff:
Why not just use Java?

It depends on the app.

Standard Java apps are not very "Mac-like" - with menu bars in windows and no support for sheets, etc. You also can't support things like AppleScript and other MacOS technologies unless you use Java Cocoa. Since you would use Cocoa, it's better to use Obj-C.

FOr anything but the simplest of apps, I'd use Cocoa/Obj-C

[Kristoff]

RTFA!!!

Your reply makes no sense. This guy is talking about writing windows apps.

There is no easier way to write a windows application on a mac than using Java and targeting the JVM.

[seppak]

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an option on windows that allows you write programs without spending too much time learning apis, ect. I have never been a fan of Java and prefer a language that is a subset of C. Classes are not always the best way to do things. Anyways, does anyone have any experience with C++ Builder or JBuilder from Borland?

[hayesk]

Originally posted by Kristoff:

Your reply makes no sense. This guy is talking about writing windows apps.

It makes perfect sense if I assumed he wanted to write apps for both MacOS *and* Windows. Cocoa/GNU-Step/Obj-C would be better, IMHO, provided GNUStep runs adequately on Windows.

There is no easier way to write a windows application on a mac than using Java and targeting the JVM.

Easy yes. With good results - it depends on the app.

[Kristoff]

Originally posted by hayesk:
It makes perfect sense if I assumed he wanted to write apps for both MacOS *and* Windows. Cocoa/GNU-Step/Obj-C would be better, IMHO, provided GNUStep runs adequately on Windows.

Easy yes. With good results - it depends on the app.

Touché. I guess I need to go back and re-rtfa.

[Kristoff]

Originally posted by seppak:
I have never been a fan of Java

Possibly because you haven't taken the time to learn it?

and prefer a language that is a subset of C.

Uh....I think you mean "superset" of C.

Classes are not always the best way to do things.

True. But more often than not, when making non-trivial apps using HLLs it makes perfect sense.

Anyways, does anyone have any experience with C++ Builder or JBuilder from Borland?

I've used JBuilder before, but for some reason I prefer NetBeans. Could be that it's free, or could be that it's a pure Java app, so it runs the same on Windows, OS X, Linux, and Solaris.

[itistoday]

Java owns

[Kristoff]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Java owns

Indeed

[TampaDeveloper]

Yep, seppak wants Java if he wants it to be cross platform, C# if he wants the easiest Windows environment, or Python if he wants a good compromise between cross platform abilities and simplicity. I've been developing Java for the last 5 years, so I'm sick of it. But its not bad. The biggest problem is the lack of decent cross-platform GUI classes. But check out Python too.

[seppak]

I never really wanted cross-platform compatibility. If there was something equivalent with Cocoa on windows, that would be ideal but doesn't seem like a possibility. After thinking about using java, I have decided against it. I have never been a fan of the language or enjoy programming in it.
Unless I find a better alternative, I will probably settle on Visual C++. I only have Visual C++ 6.0 and do not want to buy a new version of visual studio for C#. Python might be an option. In my programming languages theory and design class, we learned a little about it. I remember it had some cool features most languages don't have (functions as first class objects, ect...). What IDE do you recommend if I want to use python and how easy is it to do interfaces?

[TampaDeveloper]

Originally posted by seppak:
I never really wanted cross-platform compatibility. If there was something equivalent with Cocoa on windows, that would be ideal but doesn't seem like a possibility. After thinking about using java, I have decided against it. I have never been a fan of the language or enjoy programming in it.
Unless I find a better alternative, I will probably settle on Visual C++. I only have Visual C++ 6.0 and do not want to buy a new version of visual studio for C#. Python might be an option. In my programming languages theory and design class, we learned a little about it. I remember it had some cool features most languages don't have (functions as first class objects, ect...). What IDE do you recommend if I want to use python and how easy is it to do interfaces?

For what you want to do, honestly your best choice is C# Standard. Its $89 and has the entire Visual Studio included. You have all the nice tools including a RAD environment. There's tons of great books. This is what you want.

[TampaDeveloper]

http://www.provantage.com/buy-220779...n-shopping.htm

[seppak]

What advantages does it have over VisualC++ other than the language that justifies paying $90? Also, don't you have to install the .Net framework on every computer you run the program on?

[itistoday]

You know... Cocoa# is currently in active development (Mac version of C# using Mono I think). You can find out more here.

[djohnson]

Mainstream, easy GUI on windows does not exist. I have a Petzold Programming Windows book that is huge...

[EmmEff]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Mainstream, easy GUI on windows does not exist. I have a Petzold Programming Windows book that is huge...

Visual Basic or Delphi make it as easy as it possibly could be, but as a C/C++ programmer, I don't consider either of those options

MFC on Windows wraps the tedious stuff about GUI programming on Windows, but it too has it's limitations (sometimes the abstraction is too close and sometimes too far from the low-level stuff).

With that said, Microsoft Visual C++ is the only option that enjoys most of the support. It is what most companies use to develop Windows applications.

[TampaDeveloper]

Originally posted by seppak:
What advantages does it have over VisualC++ other than the language that justifies paying $90? Also, don't you have to install the .Net framework on every computer you run the program on?

The advantage is the sheer number of goodies that come in the .Net framework. And yes, you would have to make sure .Net framework was installed, but that is sickeningly easy (in a Microsoft way of course). Plus, most Win boxes already have the .Net framework installed. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows Update shoves it down your throat.

[TampaDeveloper]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Mainstream, easy GUI on windows does not exist. I have a Petzold Programming Windows book that is huge...

Now come on! Visual Studio C# Standard is about the easiest GUI development environment around.

[EmmEff]

Originally posted by TampaDeveloper:
I wouldn't be surprised if Windows Update shoves it down your throat.

It is available from Windows Update, but it's not shoved down your throat. It is an optional, not insignificant install.