[PD-dev] Macs to transition to ARM processors

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 24.06.20 16:00, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 12:00 PM, pd-dev-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
>> so running on all
>> architectures ever supported by OSX (modulo system libraries...).
> 
> To be pedantic, it has been officially "macOS" for some years now. The upcoming version will be 11.0, so "OS X" will no longer be relevant anyway.

of course i used "OSX" on purpose, as this was from a historic pov.
iirc, most architectures in my list have been supported by the
(historic) OSX rather than the (new) macOS.

it was not meant as a generic meant at as a generic rant about apple's
naming scheme (though of course, i kinda accepted that interpretation too).

> 
>> why not just add arm64 to that list?
> 
> I was only musing that the "Universal 2" format *might* be new. I haven't read any of the details about it yet. Hopefully it's the same thing with just the new architecture.

indeed.
after reading up (somewhere between writing the first and the second
part of my email), it's concerning that they chose to label it differently.

> I don't often feel so welcome when the platform I'm explicitly contributing a good amount of time toward is often bashed by people who don't prefer to use it.

sorry. if my post came across like this, it was really unintentional.
(on re-reading, i don't find my email especially snarky; except for the
first line alluding to iOS as their mainline system)

>> so the only way to produce fat binaries (that include mor ethan x86_&4
>> and amd64) is to have multiple build systems (parts of them unsupported
>> by now) and combine the artifacts into a single binary in a second step.
> 
> I think it's better to have separate builds, which we already have. It's already hard enough, especially concerning Tcl/Tk frameworks, that I do not think making "one app bundle to rule them all" is even practical... feasible perhaps, but not sustainable.

oh totally.
i was only trying to explain why i think that apple might not need to
put extra hurdles in the way of developers by inventing a new file
format, as they have easier ways to nudge people towards supporting only
recent architectures.

but of course, if *we* - as a bunch of open source devs - are able to
setup CI systems that compile for multiple target architectures and
OS-versions, it's to be expected that commercial software companies can
do the same.

gfmddras
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20200624/251b0056/attachment.sig>