Thank you Adam. That is precisely correct. Graywolf: Photoshop and the supporting libraries that it includes are well over 10 million lines of code. It would be absurd to consider that Adobe has enough staff and money to create two entirely different code bases of this magnitude of complexity that do the same thing. 500,000 lines of code as the delta between two platforms (and it might be less than that) is minimal: that translates to a body of code equivalent to 1-2 programmer years of development, by the metrics of commercial application development; a far more doable proposition.
If you actually read one of the many books on Photoshop, you might also notice that even in user interface the differences between Mac OS and Windows platform versions of Photoshop are quite minor and are there primarily due to the particular OS platform's accepted conventions of user interface design. You might worry less about what I might be "full of" and consider more whether what you're saying is correct and accurately presented. Godfrey On Tuesday, August 30, 2005, at 12:04PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You stated they were 'two entirely different programs'. Godfrey, who is >in a position to know, said that you were incorrect. The only area that >you were correct on was how they handle hardware (Actually how they >handle the different API's, I'd suspect the internal VM code is >essentially similar) and even then you were only peripherally correct. >95% common code in a cross-platform app that's actually directly using >the Win32 and Carbon/Cocoa API's is very good coding and certainly not >'two entirely different programs' (I'd expect to see less code >commonality for many similar apps). Only apps which use a 3rd party API >like GTK+ or wxWindows to allow them easy portability will have more >than 95% code commonality between Windows/Mac OS. > >-Adam > > >Graywolf wrote: >> Yep, yep, yep.... >> >> If anyone else had posted that, I might have figured that I was >> mistaken. But since you went off like clockwork, it just prooves my >> point. Only 5% difference and that only has to do with the hardware, you >> say???? >> >> To bad you can't read english! >> >> Why is it when I say something simply you have to prove I am wrong by >> saying the same thing in a long winded manner. I had a Math teacher just >> like you, "Yes you can do it in 3 steps that way, but I want you do it >> this way (spends 15 minutes scribling on the blackboard outlining the >> problem in 27 steps). The only real difference between you and he is I >> can safely say, I think you are full of shit. >> >> graywolf >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com >> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" >> ----------------------------------- >> >> >> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Graywolf wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe it needs to be mentioned here. Photoshop for Windows, and >>>> Photoshop for Mac X are actually two entirely different programs. >>>> Yes they do have a very similar interface and many of the techniques >>>> used on one work fine on the other. But in other ways trying to >>>> treat them as the same program will lead to utter confusion, >>>> especially with regard to how they us the hardware they are loaded on. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry Graywolf, but that's absolutely incorrect. There are detail >>> differences in the user interface and the low level interfaces to the >>> OS graphics systems and memory management functions, but the core >>> and Photoshop application binaries are built at Adobe from at least >>> 95% identical source files. >>> >>> I worked with these teams at Adobe quite a bit, personally, when I >>> was involved with Apple's development tools engineering group. >>> >>> Godfrey >>> >>> >> >> > > >
