For the most part, any application from Apple that runs or used to run on OS 9 uses the Carbon API (API = application programming interface, aka a library). The Finder, AppleWorks, iTunes, Internet Explorer from Microsoft, and the Quicktime player are all Carbon-based. Apple has started to replace some of their application with one programmed using the Cocoa API: Sherlock 3, iMovie 3, along with Safari, iPhoto, Mail, iCal, iChat, iSync, the various .Mac utilities, and most of the other system utilities.
Pretty much all of the big third-party developers use Carbon: Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. There are a bunch of smaller developers that have embraced Cocoa, and have rewritten their apps or written new ones with the API. There are even a few developers that have been using Cocoa before Apple bought it from NeXT Computers, and they have brought their apps into OS X: The Omni Group, Stone Design, IllumineX, and Caffein was one of those who have developed Cocoa apps for about 10-15 years.
Carbon is a program that is written to run in both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.x, but in OS 9 you need to have the CarbonLib library installed into your Extensions folder. When these programs are run under OS X they take full advantage of the system, whereas in OS 9 they may not.
Cocoa is a program that is written exclusively for the Mac OS X architecture. It will NOT run under Mac OS 9.
NOTE: Carbon and Cocoa are not programs themselves. They are just different ways of coding a program.
Now for the serious answer. They are different was of writing programs. When you write a program for Mac OS X, you can write it in Carbon or Cocoa (there are others which I won't mention). It gets compiled, so it can be run directly by the CPU to speed things up, but the calls to the operating system to do things remain Carbon or Cocoa.
Carbon applications can be written to support Mac OS 9 and X. In fact, Carbon is an evolution of the old Mac OS Toolbox. Some applications which only support X are carbon, generally because they were "ported" - made carbon - from the old Mac OS 9 versions. Two examples are Photoshop and Office v.X. Because Carbon is evolutionary, not revolutionary like Cocoa, it's easier to transition to that.
Cocoa is terribly easy to write applications in. It's fantastic. Its always object oriented, and it's just plain good. It works at the higher levels of the OS though, so it's slower (more work needs to be done by the computer). Of course, Cocoa apps arn't necessarily slower, it depends how much an application has been "optimized".
Now for the serious answer. They are different was of writing programs. When you write a program for Mac OS X, you can write it in Carbon or Cocoa (there are others which I won't mention). It gets compiled, so it can be run directly by the CPU to speed things up, but the calls to the operating system to do things remain Carbon or Cocoa.
Carbon applications can be written to support Mac OS 9 and X. In fact, Carbon is an evolution of the old Mac OS Toolbox. Some applications which only support X are carbon, generally because they were "ported" - made carbon - from the old Mac OS 9 versions. Two examples are Photoshop and Office v.X. Because Carbon is evolutionary, not revolutionary like Cocoa, it's easier to transition to that.
Cocoa is terribly easy to write applications in. It's fantastic. Its always object oriented, and it's just plain good. It works at the higher levels of the OS though, so it's slower (more work needs to be done by the computer). Of course, Cocoa apps arn't necessarily slower, it depends how much an application has been "optimized".
Barto
Thanks for going into more detail for me Barto. ^_^
Comments
Pretty much all of the big third-party developers use Carbon: Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. There are a bunch of smaller developers that have embraced Cocoa, and have rewritten their apps or written new ones with the API. There are even a few developers that have been using Cocoa before Apple bought it from NeXT Computers, and they have brought their apps into OS X: The Omni Group, Stone Design, IllumineX, and Caffein was one of those who have developed Cocoa apps for about 10-15 years.
Some techy links about Carbon and Cocoa APIs:
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/carbon/"; target="_blank">http://developer.apple.com/carbon/</a>;
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/"; target="_blank">http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/</a>;
<a href="http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/ct/37"; target="_blank">http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/ct/37</a>; (articles on the bottom of the page are the oldest ones, and are the most general)
Cocoa is a program that is written exclusively for the Mac OS X architecture. It will NOT run under Mac OS 9.
NOTE: Carbon and Cocoa are not programs themselves. They are just different ways of coding a program.
That's a Lucien Carbin.
And that's Hershey's Cocoa.
----------------
Now for the serious answer. They are different was of writing programs. When you write a program for Mac OS X, you can write it in Carbon or Cocoa (there are others which I won't mention). It gets compiled, so it can be run directly by the CPU to speed things up, but the calls to the operating system to do things remain Carbon or Cocoa.
Carbon applications can be written to support Mac OS 9 and X. In fact, Carbon is an evolution of the old Mac OS Toolbox. Some applications which only support X are carbon, generally because they were "ported" - made carbon - from the old Mac OS 9 versions. Two examples are Photoshop and Office v.X. Because Carbon is evolutionary, not revolutionary like Cocoa, it's easier to transition to that.
Cocoa is terribly easy to write applications in. It's fantastic. Its always object oriented, and it's just plain good. It works at the higher levels of the OS though, so it's slower (more work needs to be done by the computer). Of course, Cocoa apps arn't necessarily slower, it depends how much an application has been "optimized".
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
That's a Lucien Carbin.
And that's Hershey's Cocoa.
----------------
Now for the serious answer. They are different was of writing programs. When you write a program for Mac OS X, you can write it in Carbon or Cocoa (there are others which I won't mention). It gets compiled, so it can be run directly by the CPU to speed things up, but the calls to the operating system to do things remain Carbon or Cocoa.
Carbon applications can be written to support Mac OS 9 and X. In fact, Carbon is an evolution of the old Mac OS Toolbox. Some applications which only support X are carbon, generally because they were "ported" - made carbon - from the old Mac OS 9 versions. Two examples are Photoshop and Office v.X. Because Carbon is evolutionary, not revolutionary like Cocoa, it's easier to transition to that.
Cocoa is terribly easy to write applications in. It's fantastic. Its always object oriented, and it's just plain good. It works at the higher levels of the OS though, so it's slower (more work needs to be done by the computer). Of course, Cocoa apps arn't necessarily slower, it depends how much an application has been "optimized".
Barto
Thanks for going into more detail for me Barto. ^_^