On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Tony Scaminaci wrote:
Carbon was intended as a transitional API from OS 9 to OS X and it
worked well for that purpose. Carbon's been around since the advent
of OS X so how long do you keep a transitional API alive? The
problem here is that the replacement API (Cocoa) is nothing like
carbon and as Larry has said, it's much more than just an API. It's
an entirely different philosophy of programming and one that is not
cross-platform. Hind sight is 20/20 but maybe a better thing to do
would have been to develop an API similar to Windows (heretic!!!)
given the fact that we're now transitioning to Intel anyway. If
Apple had done that instead of ramming Next's Cocoa API into XCode,
maybe we'd all be better off as Apple developers today. The way to
keep the Mac viable is for software that people run under Windows to
also run under OS X. The stumbling block has been Cocoa because it's
so different.
I've seen several statements in this thread to the effect of Cocoa "is
not cross-platform", thus it's bad.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the subject at hand: no 64 bit
Carbon UI code in Leopard. If you are writing native Mac OS X UI code,
it's platform specific by definition regardless of which language or
API you use.
Dave
_______________________________________________
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
