On Nov 3, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 03.11.05 um 15:32 Uhr schrieb Adrian Robert:
On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Sean Fulton wrote:
On 2005-10-07 10:23:07 -0400, Adrian Robert
<arobert@cogsci.ucsd.edu> said:
If they're paying attention at all they won't even consider Carbon.
I believe Apple has essentially told developers that Carbon is
dead. If you want your app to run (well) on OS X on Intel, you have
to develop with Cocoa. Porting something to Carbon now would be a
waste of time.
That's good news if so, but if the story so far is any indication,
Carbon will continue to maintain a very vigorous life of its own,
regardless of what Apple wants. Microsoft, Adobe, and others won't
rewrite their apps, and even Apple would have a lot of work to do,
redoing Finder, iTunes, etc.. (I have NO idea why they essentally
*rewrote* Workspace Manager in Carbon in the first place, but there
you have it..)
They did not rewrite Workspace Manager in Carbon they killed it and
ported stuff from the existing Mac OS 9 Finder to Carbon, partially
to prove that Carbon was a viable way to do such things since the
major companies like Adobe and Quark were not convinced and thought
about dropping Mac support at all. Even the sheer existence of that
thing called Carbon is a result of this. OPENSTEP was ported to PPC
and somewhat ready (called Rhapsody) but the application suppliers
did not jump on that train - basically to avoid having their apps
rewritten in ObjC/OpenStep.
It's an interesting question *why* the app developers felt this way,
given the maintainability advantages of OpenStep, and the fact that
Adobe, Quark, and others were _already running and selling their
software on OpenStep_ pretty much right up until the beginning of the
Rhapsody era. My guess is that the OO nature of the API made it
architecturally more difficult to share common code with the Windows
versions.