On 2/12/01 11:46 AM, "jud spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> True. The real, and overwhelming, advantage of Cocoa is its ease of
>> development. You don't have to delve into the basement-level detail that
>> Carbon development requires, if you don't want to. In Carbon, you have to
>> machine your own nuts and bolts, assemble the furnace, and construct the
>> mechanicals room before you can build the house. In Cocoa, you just pull the
>> mechanicals room off the shelve and put it in the house. At the same time,
>> you don't lose the ability to customize the mechanicals room to your heart's
>> content. Design a better furnace, if you like, and just replace the one that
>> came with the prefab mechanicals room. For these reasons, if you're starting
>> a new application from scratch (or if the code of your old application is so
>> skanky that it really needs to be replaced), Cocoa is the way to go.
>
> There is a much larger checklist to check off before deciding on Carbon
> development. If you have to use C++ for any reason, Carbon will likely be
> the better choice. There are others, even though Cocoa replaces things like
> PowerPlant, there is a body of knowledge in Carbon that can't be replaced by
> items that are available in Cocoa. I honestly don't see many long-time Mac
> developers starting to develop on Cocoa anytime soon.
But for people just starting out, Cocoa is a much faster learning curve (at
least for me. I know I wrote my first Cocoa app from scratch in about an
hour (after doing the tutorials, etc.) You can have a really feature-rich
app in an order of magnitude less time. However, you are right that
corporate knowledge and history, and not having to start over probably makes
it a wash or tips in favor of Carbon at least for most pre-existing apps.
-Steve
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
