Re: Cocoa's Popularity
Re: Cocoa's Popularity
- Subject: Re: Cocoa's Popularity
- From: Andrew Pinski <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:31:07 -0500
Actually the reason that Office X does not run in OS 9.x is because
Microsoft
does not want it run there, but it could if it wanted it to, I looked at
the Symbols
it imports(and strings because they have a CFM app and they load in a
mach-o
bundle(or shared library) for shared memory), the only thing it does
differently
is the shared memory which I think it should be very easy to do.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Saturday, March 23, 2002, at 01:55 , Chris Garaffa wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2002, at 01:06 AM, Jeff LaMarche wrote:
It would be relatively dumb to make it for internal use only. It
doesn't cost them much to make it available and they get a lot of
information and feedback about it for free, and they have a pool of
people learning a niche language and tool that would otherwise
probably (sadly) die. Without that, they'd have to train everybody
they'd hire because it would become a proprietary toolset. It would
also piss off those software companies that have made the jump to
Cocoa, some of which Apple can't afford to piss off (Hell, isn't
Office X written in Cocoa?)
Wait a second... Office X is written in Carbon, no? It doesn't work on
OS 9.x with CarbonLib because it ties in very tightly with Carbon... I
don't know the technical details off the top of my head (I can't find
my copy of MacWorld/MacAddict that explains it). Considering that
Office contains ~20 million lines of code, I'd say they used Carbon...
even the folks at the MacBU are human, and converting that much code
between Classic code and Cocoa would have been absolutely crazy...
Anyway, minor detail, but you did ask ;)
Chris
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.