Re: 32-bit on 10.8
Re: 32-bit on 10.8
- Subject: Re: 32-bit on 10.8
- From: Charles Srstka <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:02:58 -0500
On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Jayson Adams <email@hidden> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Jayson Adams <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Except Apple itself says it might not make sense to do so. From the 64-bit Transition Guide:
>>>
>>> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/indications/indications.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064-CH206-TPXREF101
>>
>> That article is wildly out of date. Notice how it emphatically advises you *not* to compile your applications as 64-bit only, whereas 64-bit only is not only the default nowadays, but is required for all the latest additions Apple has made to the language (including, but not limited to, ARC).
>
> Not everyone uses ARC, or the other recent additions Apple has made to the language.
Yes, but the fact that everything new that Apple adds assumes that you're compiling for 64-bit only really ought to tell you something.
>> It also advises that you should include PPC code in your binaries, which Xcode doesn't even let you *do* anymore.
>
>
> This is not the first piece of Apple documentation to contain stale info. It is a leap to conclude that those portions invalidate the rest of the document.
However, that's not the only thing that's out of date — the obsolescence is systemic to the entire article, making constant reference to PowerPC, leaving out any mention of recent Apple technologies that require 64-bit, making no reference to any version of OS X later than 10.6, suggesting build settings that are no longer even possible, and having a "Last Modified" date of almost two years ago.
Apple once said that it might sometimes make sense to use Carbon instead of Cocoa. Apple once said that Carbon was a first-class peer of Cocoa and was the "basis for all life." Apple says a lot of things.
> I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong in your general conclusion about the fate of 32-bit, because you don't know and I don't know either. What I am saying, though, is that for all of the 32-bit-the-sky-is-falling, the first place a 32-bit straggler turns—the 64-bit porting guide—the beast itself states upfront that you really may not want to make the transition after all.
I've talked to certain people "on the inside" who have also let me know quite clearly that we need to be porting to 64-bit, but even beyond that, Apple just transitioned the whole OS to 64-bit only with Lion last year. Anyone with basic pattern recognition skills should know what to expect based on what's happened the last few times Apple has transitioned the OS to a new architecture. You're setting yourself up for a disaster if you fail to read the writing on the wall.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden