• 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: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)


  • Subject: Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
  • From: publiclook <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:55:06 -0500

Contrary to the RealBasic article: Cocoa can be used conveniently with Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, and several scripting languages. Cocoa can be used less than conveniently with ANSI C, ANSI/ISO C++, and any language that can call C functions.

Contrary to the RealBasic article: Apple's Foundation Kit is largely replicated by gnustep which makes many Foundation applications very portable.

Cocoa is derived from Openstep which was ported to many platforms including Windows NT. Openstep delivered what Java has only promised IMHO.

Cocoa is a very elegant collection of object oriented frameworks that provide a highly productive environment for writing many kinds of software.

If Cocoa is used with Objective-C or Objective-C++, the Cocoa code can be freely intermixed with existing C/C++ code including Carbon code. This is a good thing because many features of Mac OS X can only be accessed with C APIs at this time.

Contrary to the RealBasic article: Objective-C was not invented by Apple or NeXT and has never been restricted to those environments. Objective-C is included with the Gnu Compiler Collection (gcc) and has been available from multiple sources since at least 1988.

I don't recommend rewriting Carbon software that already works unless it was going to be largely rewritten anyway. If it aint broke, don't fix it. When starting almost any large software project, Cocoa is a huge productivity, elegance, and features win over alternatives including RealBasic IMHO. I think there is a glass ceiling for RealBasic applications. They don't scale to full blown full featured applications. Cocoa has no such limits.

I think Cocoa is the best general purpose software development technology yet made, but I admit the opinion like most is subjective and others have different opinions.

On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 08:57 AM, Tito Ciuro wrote:

On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 02:46 PM, J. Todd Slack wrote:

Can anyone tell me why I should do this? I mean are apps faster, respond better? What does making it OS X native really gain me?

Here's a nice brief intro:

http://realbasic.com/realbasic/about/Carbon_vs_Cocoa.html

-- Tito
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
      • From: Chris Ryland <email@hidden>
    • Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
      • From: mathew <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon) (From: Tito Ciuro <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: PBI: tear-off tab items?
  • Next by Date: Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
  • Previous by thread: Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
  • Next by thread: Re: Why Cocoa (say vs Carbon)
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread