Am 03.11.2005 um 21:35 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.
My guess is that the OO nature of the [*Step] API made it
architecturally more difficult to share common code with the
Windows versions.
FWIW, I can pretty much support this opinion. If you listen to Apple
mailing lists, there are many developers out there coding primarily
on Windows and wanting a similar API on Mac OS X as well. They
obviously feel more comfortable with Carbon as Carbon shares roots
with the Windows API. Some of them even report they have no influence
on the Windows code they have to port to the Mac; the quality of the
Mac API is counted by the number of lines they need to get it running.
Apple, with the advent of Tiger, marked all the QuickDraw functions
(the classical Carbon graphics model) as deprecated. But if they
ditch Carbon any time soon, they could easily loose half of all the
applications available.
Their answer to the situation seems to be CoreFoundation. A low level
framework with mostly Cocoa in mind, but accessible through a plain C
API.
What does this mean for GNUstep? Well the hack-until-it-builds-and-
debug-until-it-seems-to-work type of application development appears
to be wide spread. A lot of developers firmly hold grip on their
existing, huge code bases. They prefer low level hacks over revising
or even rewriting logic. IMHO, GNUstep can't do much about this, but
to continue making the development of well thought code design even
easier and quicker. Some steps towards fewer diffs to Cocoa
development surely wouldn't hurt.
Again, only $0.02,
Markus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
