Am Donnerstag, 03.11.05 um 21:35 Uhr schrieb Adrian Robert:
On Nov 3, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 03.11.05 um 15:32 Uhr schrieb Adrian Robert:
On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Sean Fulton wrote:
On 2005-10-07 10:23:07 -0400, Adrian Robert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
If they're paying attention at all they won't even consider Carbon.
I believe Apple has essentially told developers that Carbon is
dead. If you want your app to run (well) on OS X on Intel, you have
to develop with Cocoa. Porting something to Carbon now would be a
waste of time.
That's good news if so, but if the story so far is any indication,
Carbon will continue to maintain a very vigorous life of its own,
regardless of what Apple wants. Microsoft, Adobe, and others won't
rewrite their apps, and even Apple would have a lot of work to do,
redoing Finder, iTunes, etc.. (I have NO idea why they essentally
*rewrote* Workspace Manager in Carbon in the first place, but there
you have it..)
They did not rewrite Workspace Manager in Carbon they killed it and
ported stuff from the existing Mac OS 9 Finder to Carbon, partially
to prove that Carbon was a viable way to do such things since the
major companies like Adobe and Quark were not convinced and thought
about dropping Mac support at all. Even the sheer existence of that
thing called Carbon is a result of this. OPENSTEP was ported to PPC
and somewhat ready (called Rhapsody) but the application suppliers
did not jump on that train - basically to avoid having their apps
rewritten in ObjC/OpenStep.
It's an interesting question *why* the app developers felt this way,
given the maintainability advantages of OpenStep, and the fact that
Adobe, Quark, and others were _already running and selling their
software on OpenStep_ pretty much right up until the beginning of the
Rhapsody era. My guess is that the OO nature of the API made it
architecturally more difficult to share common code with the Windows
versions.
That sounds reasonable although it is not completely understandable
since around that time NeXT offered and Apple promised to keep Yellow
Box (that was the name for the OPENSTEP/Cocoa Frameworks around that
time) for Windows. In a way that stuff exists until today (in the form
of the WebObjects tools) but you simply can't license it nor is there
any support for it - so far only Apple uses it. Maybe those companies
did not want to become dependent on a framework they don't own in
detail and on Apple in general. Apple has a bad record of hyped
technologies that disappeared during their next crisis (OpenDoc,
QuickDrawGX and others come to my mind here - even WebObjects, the main
saviour of NeXT for a time has now a somewhat unclear future). So far
only technologies that Apple uses themselves survived in the long run.
If I was the CEO of a large Software Company I also wouldn't bet on
Apple and their technologies ...
E.g., in Emacs, the cross-platform GUI works by having a really
micro-managing shared core that doles out mini-tasks to the windowing
code (which in turn passes individual low-level events back). This
runs contrary to the OO approach of semi-autonomous components
maintaining and updating their own state, so that the Cocoa/GNUstep
port ends up using lots of low-level function calls and not
benefitting from NSText or other subsystems the way it should.
OO.org, if they go forward with Cocoa, will probably face these same
problems, and thus not end up singing its praises as one might think
they would..
Another reason to get GNUstep on Windows into a mature state if you ask
me.
regards
Lars
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
