Mailing Lists: Apple Mailing Lists
Image of Mac OS face in stamp
 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC


On 08 Apr 2008, at 22:53, Tim McGaughy wrote: 
On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Jack Small wrote:

On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Tim McGaughy wrote:

I don't think it's really ever been a secret that Carbon was intended primarily as a bridge for OS9 apps to port to OS10.

That is absurd and inflammatory. It is revisionist history in every sense of the term.

No, it isn't. Back when OS10 was first introduced, Apple's developer pages kept suggesting that new projects be started using Cocoa rather than Carbon.

They backpedalled a lot on that over the years, and after a while started introducing all sorts of new and shiny Carbon APIs. Jobs even said at of the more recent WWDCs (in '06 in the context of announcing that both would get a 64 bit overhaul?) that Carbon and Cocoa were both first class citizens on Mac OS X.

I think John Nack of Adobe explains it better than I - as he would say - Cocoa is not the One True Way™.

<http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html>

They're going to release a 64 bit version, and it's going to use Cocoa. They're just going to be a little late with it. So? He doesn't seem to be ranting at Apple.

He explains why they're going to be late, and how people shouldn't complain to them because Apple only let them know at WWDC07 that they'd have to ditch their Carbon code and move everything over to Cocoa if they wanted 64 bits support (he indeed doesn't mention that Apple previously publicly stated that this would not be needed).

If you didn't think Apple had abandoned Carbon as useless, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Why do you keep claiming that Carbon is useless while it obviously isn't? Just to get people worked up so you can then complain about them ranting and tell them to chill?

Really, objective C isn't that hard to learn.

Non sequitur. Neither is Portuguese.

Portuguese isn't nearly as similar to English as Objective C is to C+ + and plain old C. If you know C++, you're already most of the way there.


He was merely saying that your statement was besides the point. The main issue is not that it is supposedly difficult to learn Objective- C, but
a) the fact that people are forced to do it without seeing a good reason for doing so (it's like me telling you to stop using Apple Mail and to switch to Thunderbird, even though you may prefer Apple Mail for various reasons and even though it works perfectly well for you; and while Thunderbird is not a typical Mac app, it isn't difficult to learn either)
b) the fact that learning Objective-C is not even a tenth of the work. The main work is learning the Cocoa APIs (and forgetting the Carbon ones)
c) all existing Carbon/C(++) (and Carbon/Pascal, of which there appears to be more around than I'd ever thought) code is not going to rewrite itself into Cocoa/Objective-C code nor debug itself along the way


Jonas _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Carbon-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/carbon-dev/email@hidden

This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: "ZhaoYu" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: Jack Small <email@hidden>)
 >Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: Bill Bumgarner <email@hidden>)
 >Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: "parag vibhute" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: Tim McGaughy <email@hidden>)
 >Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: Jack Small <email@hidden>)
 >Re: No session about Carbon in WWDC (From: Tim McGaughy <email@hidden>)



Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
1-800-MY-APPLE

Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.