I'm researching ahead of time compilation of JVM applications, so far I've found GraalVM's Native Image and Kotlin Native, but other than that my searches are coming up rather empty.
I have found JEP295's experimental AOT compiler but is has been removed as of JEP410, which itself refers to GraalVM as an alternative.
This question is pretty outdated, answers mostly suggest discontinued proprietary tech.
Is there anything I'm still overlooking as of 2021
So even Kotlin/Native is practically useles when trying to do anything else than mobile development, so it's only GraalVM at the moment for any one wondering.
Related
I'm a developer in ActionScript and while I'm watching Haxe as a language to be used by me, since besides the resemblance ActionScript, still be possible to make applications with output to flash yet.
However I have a question about building AIR packages. When I search about building AIR applications with Haxe, the search does not bring satisfactory results.
I ask, after the codification and development of the code (in Haxe), how is it possible to transform what was built into an AIR package?
Thank you!
It isn't a very popular topic it seems. Anyhow, as far as I remember my experience building it some years ago, what you need would be:
If you need some air-specific APIs then you should write externs for them. There is this existing project, but it would need a bit of update as it was written for flash9, however, I believe it is doable in like 1 hour of work.
Compile to flash.
Write all the manifests you need for Air. (Sorry, don't remember what exactly it needs.)
Use this guides to package(also test and sign) your apps.
Note: If you want to go the same way you did before, you could compile haxe to as3 and be happy. However, I wouldn't recommend this method due to loosing speed and probable implications which may arrive.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I develop a library that is used by other software. Typically this library ends up packaged in Debian, Fedora, etc., and its "reverse-dependencies" also end up packaged and using it.
So, I guess this makes me an "upstream maintainer." I simply use autotools to produce a tarball, and packagers then use that to produce .deb files, etc. Now, something that has bothered me for quite some time is the disconnect between maintainers and packagers. I feel like every time I do a release, even if it is simply a bugfix release, I am potentially causing headaches for everyone down the chain.
Possible problems:
I introduced a bug that wasn't caught in testing, even though I tried extensively to test various configurations -- I don't have unlimited testing resources and it is a small library so I am mostly on my own although there are 1 or 2 other interested people who help out, but generally only test on one platform.
I forgot to bump the version number, causing confusion
I did bump the version number but forgot to bump the SO version (you know, the thing that specifies API/ABI compatibility, and is independent from the software release version)
I made a small change but accidentally caused an API incompatibility without thinking (e.g. made something "const" that should have been all along, didn't realize it would break people's code)
I made a small change but accidentally caused an ABI incompatibility -- e.g., changed a constant in a header file, wasn't thinking and forgot that this would be "baked in" in software compiled against a previous version
I have done pretty much all of these things at some time or other in the past. Due to these previous mistakes, these days I probably spend more time testing than actually developing, and still end up making mistakes. The mistakes are often not that bad, after all people understand, mistakes happen, but they sometimes cause people to drop using the library, without even talking to me or communicating on the mailing list, which sucks -- if those people were so interested, it would be cool if they had helped test before I published a release -- but anyways, you get the idea.
So, rather than just compiling and running the unit tests, my testing process now involves some pretty extensive steps. In particularly, I am now using "apt-cache rdepends" to find software that uses my library, and I install it and switch the binary out to test for ABI compatibility. Then, I uninstall it, and "apt-get source" it, and compile it against the new version to test for API compatibility.
This kind of testing involves,
understanding other peoples software and figuring out where and how it exercises my code
compiling other peoples software, including figuring out their other dependencies and how to get everything working -- for large projects this can be a nightmare.
some projects using my software are actually plugins for other projects, meaning I have to additionally get the host program working
many projects using my library are GUI-oriented, so I have to navigate and learn some software I don't even know or use, and then guess when I have got it to a place where it is actually calling out to my library
my library works on Linux, Windows, and OS X, and often I don't have enough machines and operating systems around to test on. For example, a huge problem with my last release was a bug that only showed up in Linux on x86_64. I had tested on Linux i386, and OS X 64-bit, but somehow these platforms didn't show the bug, it was particular to the Linux-64-bit combination which I had neglected testing because I didn't have the right hardware and assumed I'd covered enough ground.
As you can imagine this is not a light task, and makes for huge delays before publishing a given release, delaying the dissemination of bugfixes, etc. The worst thing is that my project is not even a large library, and is a hobby project of mine, so all of this feels like huge overhead just for something I do in my spare time. I'd rather be developing features than just defending against my own potential mistakes for every little change I make. But, it currently has 42 rdepends listed in Ubuntu, to give you an idea, and I'm proud that it is useful to other people so I want to be able to develop and improve it without worrying so much about breaking things for everyone.
My question is, how can I improve the efficiency of this testing process? Are there for example any tools that will automatically compile "rdepends" packages against a new version of my library and give me a report? Or somehow download compiled binaries of rdepends and test loading them against my ABI without actually necessarily requiring me to navigate the GUI of some unknown software?
how can I improve the efficiency of this testing process?
The main problem is communication, apart the fact that you lack scripts that automate the process. You can do pre-releases of your packages, mailing the distributions that your library supports, etc. or instead of maintaining the packages yourself insert them into some mayor Distro and let some experimented maintainer do the stuff.
You can always break people stuff, just don't do it so frequently. Remember that people need stability in some certain sense so you may document very well each change so people using your library can't say you didn't tell them.
About tools... you should find your own pace. Maybe some buildbots (AFAIK some projects lend build bots), maybe script automatizing the process you build stuff, etc. etc. etc., did I said etc.? The problem is too broad and there are effectively too many solutions that makes any suggestion non-viable. You may want to check https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/150466/104338 as "some" methods but, again, you should find your own pace.
Does anyone know how to setup Objective-C with KDevelop? I've been searching and searching for a supposed "patch", which is supposed to integrate support in with the IDE, yet I haven't been able to find it.
This has been partially treated on StackOverflow already. Apart from the discussion over there, I sometimes use Emacs besides Xcode. I use Emacs for most of my editing and coding needs, and it comes with a nice Objective-C mode. Autocompletion in Xcode is the big selling point, but I just found out there is an answer on Stackoverflow as well. I haven't tried it yet, but it might be worth checking out.
I would go to GnuStep.org, and ask this question on their mailing list. They're the guys who do the most obj-c development on Linux that I know of.
I'm also interesting in developing on Linux using Objective-C. Due to the success of the language on Apple platforms, there are an increasing number of skilled Objective-C Developers whose efforts could benefit OSS if only the gap in Linux tooling were closed.
GNUstep is a fantastic effort and, along with LLVM and Clang, goes much of the way to achieving this. But: there is no modern IDE which supports Objective-C in Linux. ProjectCenter is the official GNUstep IDE but honestly it is showing its age.
JetBrains seem to be in the best position to change this situation: they are producers of the foremost Objective-C IDE for iOS: AppCode, and have just released a C/C++ IDE for Linux called CLion. If enough interest is shown, perhaps they would consider integrating Objective-C support from AppCode into CLion. Compiling against GNUstep, this would breathe new life into cross-platform Objective-C development.
I would encourage anyone interested in this possibility, to sign into JetBrains request tracker and vote for this issue: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/CPP-3353
Looking for some fast, simple and stable RPC library I stumbled upon MessagePack project which seems to be very good. It is also under active development.
If you used it in any way, could you please share your experience?
P.S. I think this question should be community wiki
Well, after some time I found that MessagePack is not well-documented (there was even non-working tutorial in Wiki for Java), there are like 7 outstanding bugs several months old without any replies. Code even is not JavaDoc'ed so that you can take and learn it quickly...
But it seems developer activity there is quite high despite of some outstanding pull requests from the community, that are several months old.
So, well, if GPL suits you, go for ICE. If not... don't know yet. Still looking.
I'm also looking into a fast, cross-platform, cross-language, non-GPL-licensed RPC library.
From looking at the C++ source of MessagePack it seems that it doesn't work on Win32 though, which is a requirement for myself.
Except for that that single item it is on top of my list of serialization/RPC libraries.
http://msgpack.org/ - Win32 missing
http://avro.apache.org/
http://thrift.apache.org/ - Win32 missing
http://bert-rpc.org/
http://www.xmlrpc.com/
http://json-rpc.org/ - GPL license
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ - RPC missing
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I know and have Xcode, but I was wondering if there were any other complete development environments that support Objective-C? I'm not looking for solutions with vim or emacs, nor editors like BBEdit that support syntax highlighting, but a full fledged IDE with:
code completion
compilation
debugging
refactoring
Extra points for being cross platform, supporting vi key bindings and supporting other languages.
Note:
I've updated and accepted my answer below as Jetbrains has released Early Access for AppCode, their new Objective-C IDE. Since this has been a fairly popular question, I thought it worthwhile to update the information.
I recently learned that Jetbrains the make of my favorite IDE (Idea) may support Objective-C (though it is unclear how much it will work for iPhone/iPad development). See the thread here for early discussion on this.
In the last year or two, they have started adding additional language support both in their flagship IDE as well as specialized IDEs (for Ruby, Python, PHP). I guess this is just another step in the process. I for one would love to have another option other than XCode and I couldn't think of one that I'd love more.
This is obviously vaporware at the moment, but I think it is something to keep an eye on.
This is now a real product, albeit still in Early Access. See here for a the blog on this new product, which will give you pointers to check out the EAP.
UPDATE: AppCode has now been released and offers a true alternative to using Xcode for Objective-C and iPhone/iPad/Mac development. It does still rely on Interface Builder for layout and wiring of GUI components and uses the iOS simulator, but all coding, including a slew of refactorings, smart templating and static analysis, is available through App Code.
Textmate is an editor like BBEdit but it has the ability to run commands such as compilation, debugging, refactoring (though it will do so via XCode). It also has code completion.
In addition, you can write your own commands for Textmate that you can then run.
I have been searching for something like this that does NOT run on mac for quite a few months now. Unfortunately I think that due to the relative obscurity of the Objective-C language that nobody has ever bothered producing such a full featured IDE for it. Until now, and we only have Xcode.
Using JBuilder I fell in love with the auto-completion and displaying the function 'hints' on the screen while I type. I am that sort of person who remembers the 'ideas' better than the actual syntax and really benefits from knowing right then and there that the code I typed was correct, not having to find out a minute later at compile time. And then to have to try and figure out if I just misspelled something, or if I truly made a conceptual error due to a misunderstanding of proper use of the language. Code completion and hints have always saved time on this for me.
I know some people may look down on this and say the feature is unnecessary if you know what you're doing, but I never claimed to be better than anyone else.
I may have to just give up and try and get OS X running on my PC. Which doesnt bother me in the least, just the rebooting to go back and forth to windows. I've tried to run it virtualized under VMWare but XCode kept crashing :( That reminds me I am going to google 'leopard vmware' and see if any progress has been made in that area.
Another problem in designing a full code-completion system with objective C is that the syntax is a little more forgiving, I dont know the exact technical term (strongly typed?) it is much harder to say exactly what sort of object belongs in a certain parameter and ANY object can be sent ANY message whether it implements that function or not. So you can spell a function name wrong, but it doesnt necessarily mean you made a syntax error... maybe you mean to call a function of that OTHER name and you just want nothing to be done if the function is not implemented by your object.
That's what I would really like to see for Objective-C, is an IDE that once it notices you are sending a message to an object, it displays a list of methods and function definitions that the object is known to accept, and walks you through filling in the parameters.
I think you would waste less time by sticking with Xcode rather than looking for another IDE if you want to develop for the Mac (or iPhone).
Apple made a lot of effort to kill any competitor in that area to make sure any developer wanting to develop for the Mac platform use Xcode and only Xcode.
It might not be the best IDE but it does work well and it is the IDE developers at Apple are using. Somehow it does its job. The frameworks and the documentation are very well integrated.
I use TextMate a lot and also SubEthaEdit but they are not full IDE as you’ve described above.
Best Regards.
Check out JetBrains' new IDE called "App Code". It's still in the Early Access Program, but even with the Early Access bugs it is hands-down better than xcode 4. I've been using it for commercial iPhone and iPad development.
http://www.jetbrains.com/objc/
I would like to second Troy's answer and note that JetBrains has AppCode in early access, so you can try it for free. It has the familiar UI of their other products, and yes, it supports vi! So far it has been very good. I have run into a few issues, and a few vi-isms that don't work quite right, but it is still better than suffering with Xcode. I do text editing with syntax completion in AppCode, but switch back to XCode to get into the GUI builder which is actually quite good in Xcode.
If you are an old vi-guy like myself, it is invaluable.
The short answer is: No. There are thousands of IDEs but Xcode is the only one which you seriously can name IDE. I suggest you have a look at the tries of GNUStep (in form of Projectcenter, Gorm) and then you can imagine the state of affairs.
I believe KDevelop is the only full IDE that supports Obj-C, but I'm not even sure how fully it supports it, having never used it myself. Worth a shot, maybe.
There are a few programmers text editors that support Objective-C, but I like Editra, mainly because I also write Python on Windows\Nix and it has great features. Editra runs well on all platforms and has a nice plug-in that supports Mercurial, GIT, and Subversion if you need them. Another nice thing, its written in Python. Editra Home
Found another, though it sounds less than ideal:
ActiveDeveloper - doesn't appear to have active support (last update was in 2006). Mac only.
KDevelop sounds like it only supports Objective-C syntax and only through its C support. I'm going to check it out anyway.
Textmate has a couple screencasts for Objective-C (here and here). It is Mac only, but otherwise looks pretty good. It is hard to tell from the screencast how strong the integrated support is as it seems to just have a lot of scripts to handle the code. Also, I can't tell if it does true code completion or just expansion for snippets.
So it doesn't look like there is anything out there that hits everything. I'll probably do most of my development on Mac, so I'm thinking I'll try out TextMate with XCode to see if it is any better than straight XCode. I'll take a quick look at KDevelop.
Thanks.