Empty is empty?
I've added a minimal "empty" application for Cocoa/OpenStep (tested on GNUstep), but maybe its place should be in some minimal code (another task? too vague maybe) page; I've done so taking a suggestion about my discussion on Obj-C codes that I was not able to run so easily, since they supposed a life-support code that is not so easy to argue. From a GUI point of view, it is an empty program... but it is not empty at language level, where the empty program is the one given before, as for other languages.
So my doubt about if it is well-placed or not. The issue, according to me, rises since a lot of coding in Obj-C uses Cocoa framework as default, but it is not the same as using stdlib in C, it would rather like using Boost in C++ without specifying a libheader or works with (but it is still not the same since Boost or parts of it are coming into C++ standard libs set, as far as I have understood reading somewhere here, and one can have them on every OS running a c++ compiler, while full Cocoa-compatible framework is just for one OS — GNUstep tries to be Cocoa-compatible, but it is always steps below); so Obj-C codes tend to be a how to program under Cocoa-capable environment, without specifying things like "works on Mac OS X 10.3 or more".
This empty shell or example code life-support has as purpose to host Obj-C examples... When I will find Obj-C codes I am able to compile and run (I am a Obj-C novice), I will add specifications like works with or libheader, ... (I hope I explained it well, my english is not so ready at the moment...) --ShinTakezou 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I hereby request a COBOL program. --foobie-bletch 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)