Re: ObjC API != Cocoa (Re: Another controversial question)
Re: ObjC API != Cocoa (Re: Another controversial question)
- Subject: Re: ObjC API != Cocoa (Re: Another controversial question)
- From: Ken Tabb <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:13:06 +0100
And so it was that Chris Kane said on 4/9/01 11:47 pm:
>
We simply can't talk about that. Not only do plans and schedules change
>
(then anger: "Apple promised us _______!"), but some groups might want
>
to make a splash with an announcement of "now with Cocoa-like APIs", or
>
whatever. Or conversely, if we say we're not going to do something,
>
then decide to do it, then somebody might also be upset.
Chris,
I appreciate all plans change, but there must be *something* Apple can
tell Cocoa developers (under NDA etc.) about what you *intend* to do. At
the moment there's no information at all (as far as I can see) telling me
whether or not it's worth wrapping an Obj-C API around Carbon/QuickTime
myself, or whether Apple *intends* to do it for us, in which case I'll
just wrap the bits I need until the official version comes out (rather
than spending time wrapping everything just to find out I didn't need to
after all).
Other areas of Apple seem quite happy to discuss (in a closed
environment) potential changes to APIs... take for example the QuickTime
for Java seed.
I appreciate that you don't want to let anyone down or mislead anyone,
but arguably that's what you're already doing by touting Cocoa as an
alternative API for Carbon... bits of Carbon are required in
Cocoa/QuickTime (even by the app developer, let alone the Cocoa API
developers). Of course it takes a developer quite a while of knocking
his/her head against a brick wall before realising that the 2 don't play
together. If Apple were to say "we're aware of this hurdle for
developers, and we intend to release an Obj-C API for QuickTime so that
you don't need to learn Carbon as well as QuickTime & Cocoa", then it
would be less painful. By not even responding to peoples' problems in the
way that Apple is, Apple has already let people down... they (or at least
I) think "clearly I'm the only bloke in the world wanting to do QuickTime
stuff from within Cocoa, and Apple couldn't give a stuff that I have to
learn twice as many APIs just to make a hack work, that's why they're not
responding to questions". And I'm paying 400 USD for the privilege of
this lack of information.
I know Apple doesn't like discussing unannounced products, but do you not
think it would be wise to (a) have a plan and (b) tell developers what
you're up to. What would be wrong with also telling the developers of any
changes to the plans eg. "We're no longer looking at making an Obj-C
QuickTime API, as there's only 1 bloke in the world who wants it. Instead
we're allocating resources to increase the amounts of Carbon needed to
get QuickTime working in Cocoa, as that's what all the Carbon developers
want". If you *keep us informed* I don't see a problem with plans
changing.
I'm talking only about getting stuff working together (eg. the different
blobs from the architecture diagram), not necessarily about whole new
APIs (eg. handwriting recognition, or whatever). I appreciate Apple might
like to keep quiet about innovative things it has up its sleeve but at
the moment people are coming to Cocoa expecting there to be a direct link
from Cocoa to each other blob in that pretty picture. And there isn't.
Have any groups yet wanted to make a splash with an announcement of "now
with Cocoa-like APIs"? Maybe I missed them. Or is there about to be a
deluge? Don't suppose it would be the QuickTime group would it? No didn't
think so.
In a secretive way I'm not even going to sign off this message.
----------------------------------------------
Ken Tabb
Mac & UNIX Propellerhead & Network Bloke (Health & Human Sciences)
Computer Vision / Neural Network researcher (Computer Science)
University of Hertfordshire
e-mail: email@hidden
http://www.health.herts.ac.uk/ken/
Certified non-Microsoft Solution Provider