On 13 Apr 2008, at 17:58, Chris Little wrote: > on 4/13/08 11:58 AM, Alfred Van Hoek at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> On Apr 13, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Theodore H. Smith wrote: >> >>> If I don't need MacOS9 support anymore... is dropping Carbon as a >>> plugin target, acceptable? >>> >> >> Don't understand. MacOS9/Carbon is classic, PEF is classic and while >> PEF can run on MacOSX, it can only run in a ppc environment. If the >> machine is i386 then Rosetta will take over to run the PEF >> application. Given that MachO is native to both ppc and i386, >> "dropping Carbon" is not acceptable, but a given in the world of >> MachO. "Carbon" was considered a temporary environment to allow >> developers to move away from classic (Carbon/PEF) and to enter >> Carbon/ >> MacOSX. However, Apple made also a decision to move away from Carbon/ >> MachO and we will be stuck in the end with Cocoa, due to the >> contagious tunnel vision bug NextStep/OpenStep people suffer from and >> that also has made the higher ranks at Apple ill. > > I think there is some misunderstanding here so I'm going to more > clearly > define the terms. > > Classic/PEF (really linking with InterfaceLib et all instead of > CarbonLib): > runs only on pre-OSX and Classic. PowerPC only. Built with > CodeWarrior. > > Carbon/PEF: runs on pre-OS X with CarbonLib installed and OS X. > PowerPC > only. Build with CodeWarrior. > > Carbon/MachO: runs only on OS X and is quite an acceptable option > for the > future. It can be PowerPC-only, Intel-only or Universal. Typically > built > with GCC although you can build the PowerPC plug-ins with > CodeWarrior. You > can use different versions of GCC for the PowerPC and Intel plug-ins > and > combine them in to a single Universal plug-in. > > RB does bridging between Carbon/PEF and Carbon/MachO. If you have a > bundled > Carbon app it can call either on OS X. > > You have to remember that the only thing Apple is backing away from is > Carbon UI. Cocoa relies on a large number of Carbon technologies > under the > hood. > >> >> >>> Will MachO have good backwards compatability with MacOSX? >> >> >> >> MachO is MacOSX, as far as I can judge ;-), NEXTSTEP depends on Mach >> or NeXT-specific hardware. > > A MachO plug-in could run on any version of OS X but only if the > APIs it > uses exist on that version of OS X. Apple's header files tell you > when an > API became available. As well you need to watch the GCC version. GCC > 4.0 > relies on a shared library for that the standard library that is only > installed on 10.3.9 or later.
Thanks Chris. Although to Alfred, the question was more about backwards compatability, not what Carbon means :) For example... Xcode for all I know may compile UB in such a way that it doesn't run on 10.0, where as Carbon/PEF runs on 10.0... Or maybe both run. I don't know. Anyhow, it doesn't matter anymore. I'm just gonna drop Carbon/PEF and use MachO UB... for Mac. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
