On 2/12/01 12:58 PM, "Bill Cheeseman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is true. The issue has been faced by all programming languages and
> systems. The economic, technological and other factors that keep one
> language or programming system alive and prevent another from becoming
> popular are complex and, I'm sure, unpredictable.
>
> Apple has done a magnificent job of maintaining backwards compatibility over
> the years. The whole Carbon project came out of the same motivation: make it
> as easy and inexpensive as possible for developers to move their legacy code
> forward, so that the new hardware and operating system features will
> continue to be supported by a large body of applications. The old systems
> eventually die out because it's too expensive to adapt them to new
> conditions and markets, but not every new system survives the pressure
> exerted by the momentum of the old system.
Simply put, if Apple didn't make Carbon available, it was just be a NeXT box
running with the Mac UI. Nobody new would develop for it other than the very
small number of existing NeXT developers.
> In the long run, I think Apple has a strong reason to urge developers to
> move toward Cocoa, however slowly. Namely, the dramatic cost savings and
> improved time-to-market when developing new applications in Cocoa, compared
> to Carbon. Apple can look forward to seeing a larger body of applications
> that run on Macs if cocoa is available and promoted as the development
> vehicle of choice.
I am sure that Cocoa may have saved our team a little time here and there in
the beginning, but it isn't clear how it could save our team time today.
Easier to get started, unclear how beneficial it is over time as an
application matures.
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
