I can only speak for myself of course:
> Wading through that awful quagmire that is Carbon, of pascal strings and calling conventions, always returning values by reference, outdated memory handling routines, a jungle of conflicting data types and structures etc., it puzzles me that so many developers still wants to hold on to it, nine years after OS X came out?
I'm not sure I would want to hold on to Carbon, although a lot can be said about backward compability. In the end the enduser suffers from the switch, since we spend our energy on redoing the same thing, instead of making new and/or improved products.
My complains (which honestly I have a lot of ;-)) are mainly aimed towards Cocoa, due to the incredible amount of code I have to write to do what I used to do in a few lines, due to the slowness of the resulting plug-ins (compared to Carbon), and due to the lack of proper object oriented support (since I have to make my classes dynamically, it feels more like C than Obj-C in the end).
> Is it because they don't want to learn Objective-C?
It's not about learning, it's about cross-platform support. Since Obj-C is Apple only, I need to glue my code to C++. That's pretty annoying, to be honest.
> Because they want to develop new features rather than reprogram what they already have?
Yup
>Because of features lacking in Cocoa
Yup
>, or because they don't even want to update their code... Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this because it is off-topic and may start a flame war...
Probably will start a war of sorts. Oh well... Next step is someone telling me it's because I don't understand Obj-C well enough, that's I'm just lazy (which I am), and so forth.
Well, I mean what I say. To have a chance of achieving the same graphics speed as I used to with Carbon, it appears I need to write my routines using OpenGL, which honestly, seems somewhat overkill for an audio plug-in.
Cheers,
Michael Olsen
PhonoXone
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
|