> Also I'd be interested in any views from developers as to whether its worth
> the effort of Carbonising or whether in the long run there are more benefits
> (end user performance?) in going to Cocoa?
Going to Carbon allows you to have a single application that works under
both Classic and X. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter
of perspective and resources.
How complex is your application? How much support do you provide to the end
user? Do you have to write new documentation if you go to Cocoa? Do you
have to provide new training to your tech support staff? Is it worth
maintaining dual source trees? Or, if you have a concurrent maintenance and
development source tree, is it worth maintaining four source trees?
Small companies with a current installed base might not be able to afford to
support both a Carbon and a Cocoa development effort. For them, Carbon
might be the way to go.
Small companies without a current installed base and without sufficient
resources to do both have to choose which platform is more important.
Greater installed base in Classic; greater potential market opportunity
under Cocoa (small fish, small pond...but it might turn into a big pond).
Hobbyists can do whatever they want. ;-)
In a lot of ways, many of the issues are like the 68k to PowerPC
transition... However, in this case, the amount of effort necessary to
support both is substantially higher.
mikel
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
