Re: How viable is Cocoa development?
Re: How viable is Cocoa development?
- Subject: Re: How viable is Cocoa development?
- From: Finlay Dobbie <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:18:08 +0000
On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:54 PM, Erik M. Buck wrote:
What documentation are you referring to?
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Carbon/carbon.html
This doesn't say that all of the stuff you mentioned before is part of
Carbon.
CoreFoundation is semi-Carbon, because it's in CarbonLib on OS 9 but is
in a lower layer than Carbon on OS X (it's even partly in Darwin, and
some other low-level parts of the system depend on it).
Everything on the Core Technologies page is just that, a "Core
Technology", and not Carbon. Same goes for Additional Technologies,
they're not Carbon either. In fact, the main Mac OS X Developer
Documentation page groups the technologies under these headers:
"Carbon", "Cocoa", "Core Technologies", "Additional Technologies",
"Networking" and "Darwin".
So, it looks like they're classified as:
Carbon
- all the OS 9 Managers plus some new ones to support extra
functionality in OS X (Carbon Event Manager, Dock Manager, etc)
Core Technologies:
- CoreFoundation
- Quartz
- Printing
- OpenGL
- Velocity Engine
- AppleScript (this is actually dodgy, it has hooks in Cocoa and
Carbon, and is probably mostly Carbon-based)
Additional Technologies:
- Preference Panes (sits on top of Cocoa)
- Screen Savers (sits on top of Cocoa)
Networking Services:
- AFP
- CFNetwork
- Directory Services
- NSL
- SystemConfiguration
Darwin Kernel Environment:
- IOKit
- Kernel API
Of course, for many of these, the definitions aren't clean cut, many of
them interdepend, but I'm merely saying that nowhere near all C APIs in
OS X are "Carbon".
-- Finlay