Re: AppKit source available as reference?
Re: AppKit source available as reference?
- Subject: Re: AppKit source available as reference?
- From: "David P. Henderson" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:23:18 -0400
On Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 11:44 , email@hidden wrote:
>
"...you do need to know what an object will do" assumes you have any
>
usable documentation for it. but this is NOT the case for cocoa. at the
>
moment it is a big dump everybody throws - more or less tested - new
>
routines on without any documentation or really poor documentation.
>
I never assumed anything. Nor did I claim otherwise than the reality
about the state of Cocoa documentation.
>
i've learned over a dozen programming languages and application
>
libraries in my professional work. but none of them - even freeware
>
products - needed so much time to find out what objects do. you're
>
argumentation will - maybe - be right in some years when apple delivers
>
some kind of usable documentation for it. but at the moment it is only
>
frustrating.
>
Personally, I've found learning Cocoa to be easier than PowerPlant or
other frameworks for the MacToolbox, all of which rely on having some
experience with the standard toolbox API. So it was very frustrating for
me trying to learn a framework and the mac toolbox simultaneously
especially given the state of intro material to mac toolbox programming
over the last several years. By contrast, my experience with Cocoa has
been very positive. The most frustrated seem to be those with either no
experience in programming or those with extensive experience in the old
mac toolbox. Note, this is just my perception and everyone is free to
disagree with me ;)
>
if someone asks me today if i recommend learning cocoa, the answer is
>
no. not because because cocoa is that bad. i think, it's a really good
>
product you can develop real good applications within a minimal time
>
frame. i wouldn't recommend it right now because you have to invest 10
>
to 15 times the effort to learn cocoa than is necessary. trying to find
>
out how a programming library works by looking at written code can be
>
fun if you have no work to do. but it is no solution for a commercial
>
oriented programming task.
>
I think that what you mean to express here is that Cocoa is not a good
solution for someone who needs to ship product now and does not have
knowledge of the environment; otherwise, "...it [Cocoa] is no solution
for a commercial oriented programming task." reads like flame bait :)
>
if apple isn't able to produce a documentation they should at least
>
open the market for someone else to go through the code and write a
>
documentation.
>
Which does not really solve the problem since you would still have to
wait for someone to produce useful docs etc... Apple seems to have
received the message loud and clear that the state of Cocoa
documentation is unacceptable.
Dave
--
Chaos Assembly Werks
"The Trend over the last 20 years or so has been to design computer
languages that enforce a state of paranoia. You're expected to program
every module as if it were in a state of siege In Perl culture, by
contrast, you're expected to stay out of someone's home because you
weren't invited in, not because there are bars on the windows."
from Programming Perl