• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: CopyCStringToPascal
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CopyCStringToPascal


  • Subject: Re: CopyCStringToPascal
  • From: Bryan Pietrzak <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:31:19 -0500


On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:

Let me rephrase: How would you stop using people functions like this in new code, how would you encourage them to eventually replace their code with more modern APIs

Easily... new APIs use CFStringRefs.

This doesn't answer my question. Mac OS X and it's API's have a redundancy of well over 60% (my estimate) already and I appreciate it very much Apple starts to phase out the really old stuff. The world is moving on and nothing worse than crippled new implementations because you have to honor stuff which is outdated for over 10 years.

Deprecate SetWTitle. Encourage use of SetWindowTitleWithCFString. No brainer. Does not require deprecating low-level Pascal and C conversion APIs, but still encourages Unicode usage. Why is this so hard for you to get?



Many third party developers costs to reimplement these yet again. Retest them.

If they reimplement them instead of modernizing their vintage code, I can't help. Importers for old data can be done without them.

No kidding. Sure it can be done without Apple's APIs -- developers will just roll their own. Again. And nothing will be gained and in fact, all we'll do is lose in tiny ways: more code duplication by developers, more code in each app's memory space, less optimized code most likely. And so on. Why deprecate perfectly useful APIs that will be needed over the long haul?



Just to prove some Unicode point?

To free developers using modern API's and users using modern apps from the burden of obsolete functionality.

You're crossing the line into Apple fanboy behavior here now. We're talking about a handful of APIs that were written years ago at Apple and have zero costs in today's world to them. In fact, removing them adds costs to thousands of developers that will once again need to write their own. And you want to take any bets on at least one of those implementations have some stupid bug? lol



Code complexity, memory footprint, maintenance costs, library sizes ... you name it.

Doh! That's my argument for keeping the APIs.


Bryan

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >CopyCStringToPascal (From: Ben Weiss <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Eric Albert <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Bryan Pietrzak <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Markus Hitter <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Bryan Pietrzak <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Markus Hitter <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Bryan Pietrzak <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CopyCStringToPascal (From: Markus Hitter <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Autoconf 2.59 - Updated to Tiger
  • Next by Date: embedding private frameworks in Xcode 2.1
  • Previous by thread: Re: CopyCStringToPascal
  • Next by thread: Re: CopyCStringToPascal
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread