On 3/1/05 2:08 AM, Kurt Bigler didst favor us with:
> on 2/28/05 2:12 AM, Laurence Harris <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/05 3:13 AM, Kurt Bigler didst favor us with:
>>
>>> on 2/27/05 11:58 PM, Laurence Harris <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/05 2:30 AM, Kurt Bigler didst favor us with:
>>>>
>>>>> For LSOpenFSRef, the headers say:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Availability:
>>>>> * Non-Carbon CFM: not available
>>>>> * CarbonLib: not available in CarbonLib 1.x
>>>>> * Mac OS X: in version 10.0 and later
>>>>>
>>>>> But CarbonLib is at version 3.something now.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the CarbonLib used with classic. The CarbonLib to which the
>>>> headers refers is the CarbonLib used with classic, the last release of
>>>> which
>>>> was 1.6.
>>>>
>>>>> I get the link error in my CFM
>>>>> build with CarbonLib, but not in my Mach-O build with the Carbon
>>>>> framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this the expected result? If so, are the headers confusing or what?
>>>>
>>>> Everything is as expected. You're just confused about CarbonLib. All of
>>>> Launch Services is Mac OS X only. You've been on this list a long time. I'm
>>>> surprised you wouldn't know this.
>
> Well it might help if people on the "inside" understood how hard it is to
> learn from the "outside".
I don't think that's the problem. The problem is more that they don't have
sufficient resources to do what developers really need.
> I was several years behind when I started
> learning OS X, and my time has been very limited since because of family
> health issues. If I could devote my life to it like you have, I would not
> be in this position.
I hope you're smart enough to not say that with any envy. ;-)
> Regarding being on the list for so many years, there is only a tiny fraction
> of the volume here that I have more than a vague understanding of, and
> therefore reading here does not help much, and reading the developer website
> does not help much. The little piece of sample code from Eric Schlegel on
> the "Carbon event minimum application" thread did absolute wonders. It
> brought me, say, from level 0 to level 1 on modern carbon. I've been
> looking for a sample code app to do that since the documentation won't
> the sample code is so full of other things that the mere volume of it make
> the information unavailable to me, unless I had a couple of months to go
> through every sample app.
I'm not a big fan of Apple's sample code. I too agree that what you want to
learn is usually buried in a lot of extra code that's irrelevant to what
interests you.
> So the doc fails, the sample code fails. But the list, in the end, works,
> once I have a clear question to ask. I tend to have a clear question to ask
> only when I finally have the moment to do a small project that is actually
> useful to me. After several years, that happenned yesterday. I got a great
> sample from Eric, and now there are more next steps available to me because
> I have taken step 1.
>
> Bottom line: I think the current organization of information locks people
> out who can't devote solid chunks of time to learning. This might be
> needless if the real way people learn was more available to the people
> creating the documentation and samples, and the organization and indexing
> thereof.
Some of the docs are good, some are not, and some are virtually nonexistent.
It's well known that this is not a area in which Apple has excelled over the
past four years.
> I know people at apple ard working hard on doc.
They are. There just aren't enough of them.
> But let me summarize my
> points which may be somewhat new, taken as a whole:
>
> (1) The current organization may not serve well the people who have limited
> time to learn. If it did, apple might find itself having a much larger
> community of developers who eventually become competent.
I agree with you, but Apple seems to be cursed with short-term thinking.
<speculating>With minimal resources devoted to tech pub production and
developer support in general, Apple seems to be focusing on (as much as they
focus on anyone) developers interested in and capable of porting existing
applications to Mac OS X or writing new commercial applications. Newbies
such as yourself are probably not considered a high priority because Apple
doesn't see you as someone who's going to give us a killer application in
the next six months.</speculating>
> (2) It seems possible that this problem can be rectified without monumental
> effort if the key learning issues can be identified and given an "organic"
> structure.
> (3) Common belief may not support the above, and so may tend to defer its
> resolution, but this may be because there have been a good sized bunch of
> developers who have been able to give a *lot* of time to the learning curve,
I think it's more of a "fend for yourself" mentality. If you can get it,
great. If not, oh well. Just as Apple as always figured a certain portion of
the population will pay more to able to own a Mac, they apparently decided
Mac developers would be willing to pay more in time and energy to write for
Mac OS X.
> following clarification: my point is not to cover different material, or to
> get into basic programming lessons. The point is probably more a matter of
> having the information available in the right order. I don't believe the
> current conception of the developer documentation achieves this. It is a
> set of hierarchies that covers the entirety of the available material.
Actually, no it doesn't. There are still areas which are essentially
undocumented.
Larry
_______________________________________________
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
