On 6/14/07, Laurence Harris <email@hidden> wrote:
Carbon 64-bit support in Tabby (10.6) just isn't going to cut it for
a lot of people. ... In addition to the obvious
timeframe aspect, there's the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me" effect in which people may not trust Apple if
they renege this time on their last promise for 64-bit support.
Understood; I agree.
> and perhaps somebody decided that Leopard's success depended more
> on translucent menu bars than on 64-bit Carbon.
I sure hope not, given that I find the busy look of translucent
interface objects to be distracting. Maybe it was so they could get
the iPhone finished. That's why they said they were postponing the
release of Leopard anyway.
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. My point is that it's easier to sell sizzle to end users, most of whom don't know or care about 64-bit Carbon -- and yet, in order for developers to be able to take advantage of new platform capabilities, the end users have to buy Leopard. So maybe not all of the "internal" developer-oriented features make the cut.
> 2) "No 64-bit Carbon in Leopard" is not the same as "no Carbon in
> Leopard".
True, but it will look like writing on the wall that signals the
eventual end of Carbon as a way to write competitive products. I
think that's the biggest concern for a lot of people.
Understood as well.
I don't see how [using Python instead of Objective-C] addresses anything.
Seems like I heard a few people stating they weren't interested in using Cocoa because they flatly refused to learn Objective-C, and part of the objection was that Objective-C was seen as either too different or not mainstream enough. Well, different I can't do anything about, but Python and especially Ruby are hot these days, and make a good match to the dynamic nature of the Objective-C runtime that Cocoa relies on (more so than Java, even)... and now I've strayed off into the weeds again. Sorry.
I find it interesting that
in many ways Apple decided to be less proprietary in Mac OS X ...
but on the other hand are becoming increasingly
proprietary with respect to the language and framework used to write
software for Mac OS X.
I think they view this (Cocoa) as a key competitive advantage, not just a proprietary technology. (Many people over on cocoa-dev would agree.) Meanwhile, Carbon is seen as "just" a proprietary technology -- albeit one in which many developers have a large investment; I don't mean to belittle that.
The platform may be the attraction, but it's the whole package that
determines whether or not you enjoy developing for the platform.
Developers, being people, are not all the same. The fewer options we
have for Mac OS X development, the fewer people there will be who are
happy with that limited set of options.
Sure; I concede this point as well.
Just my $0.02, though. I have no idea what Apple has planned for the future of Carbon or how all of
this will play out.
Maybe we'll know more tonight.
