If you'd actually bothered to read any of the discussion you'd realise I'd already said exactly that. I was addressing another question: The question is if it's an interesting topic or a issue for your average reader. The answer is no.
Nice ad hominem, that's not a tired internet cliché at all.
So if the topic isn't interesting to you, why are you still following the thread about it? And why do you think that anyone here cares if one random anonymous schmuck on the internet thinks it's interesting?
snafu: care to explain how Cocoa is any worse for cross-platform production than Carbon? They're both proprietary Mac-only APIs, they both can call C and C++...
Yes, that is so, but it is easier to map multiplatform UI features to Carbon or create new ones based on it, and that avenue is closed for 64bit. When most comments talk about separating the program's logic from the program's UI, they seem to assume that the UI is the easy part, and that's not necessarily so, when one considers, say, Maya's UI or After Effects'. Cocoa won't cover for their needs in a straightforward way.
Anyway, it feels a bit forced to do a "what was Adobe thinking all these years", as if it was so easy peasy a porty: how many gigantic apps is CS3 composed of? A dozen or so, plus a inmense community of plug-in developers which will have to rewrite (again!) their products (we'll see how many we lose this time). It's not trivial, it was even less so in the past, and they gain nothing but 64bitness and a big headache testing and reoptimizing things.
How many pro apps has Apple ported from Carbon to Cocoa? Do they intend to port any, actually? One suspects we'll see the Pro Apps UI toolbox inherit what's left of Carbon64's development and so sidestep the issue.
Isn't it well known that FCP and Logic are undergoing huge rewrites to make them 64-bit ready?
Where did you hear that, or is that just speculation?
People who have been to music trade shows and actually talked to guys on the Logic dev team have said that the word from them is that they have NO plans to update Logic to 64 bit, and that if they did, the app would take a major performance hit (which I have a hard time believing).
Hopefully both apps are getting ported to 64 bit, but is there any evidence that that's actually happnening?
Or that we'll see the result before the 64 bit version of the Adobe apps ship?
Yes, that is so, but it is easier to map multiplatform UI features to Carbon or create new ones based on it, and that avenue is closed for 64bit.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't, as a blanket statement. Carbon may feel more familiar to someone coming from Win32 or an X environment, but that's because it's similarly a legacy design. Callbacks, resource maps, and all those things we all thought were so slick 20 years ago are kind of outdated these days.
Furthermore, if someone ports their UI from another platform to the Mac, and expects to be able to just slip in some Carbon-style callbacks, calls, and so on into their other-platform UI, and have it work, well... it'll *work*, but it's going to look like *ass*. Mac users will notice, even if no one else does. If you want to play in the Mac sandbox professionally you need to step up and create a *Mac UI*. That's all there is to it.
Given that constraint, the UI code is likely to be very Mac-specific, even if it Carbon. The cross-platform argument goes out the window at the UI level, for any serious developer's app, if you ask me. Back-end? Sure! Knock yourself out. Build up those C and C++ libraries for all platforms - I do it that way too. But there's no reason why a Cocoa UI can't call into them just like a Carbon UI.
Quote:
When most comments talk about separating the program's logic from the program's UI, they seem to assume that the UI is the easy part, and that's not necessarily so, when one considers, say, Maya's UI or After Effects'. Cocoa won't cover for their needs in a straightforward way.
This is quite true. UI design is a pain in the butt, which is why so few developers manage to get it right, or even in the ballpark.
Quote:
Anyway, it feels a bit forced to do a "what was Adobe thinking all these years", as if it was so easy peasy a porty: how many gigantic apps is CS3 composed of? A dozen or so, plus a inmense community of plug-in developers which will have to rewrite (again!) their products (we'll see how many we lose this time). It's not trivial, it was even less so in the past, and they gain nothing but 64bitness and a big headache testing and reoptimizing things.
No one said it was easy, but that it was necessary... and no one expected it to be fast, which is why there was a what, *9 year gap* between "Carbon is for legacy code" and "By the way... we're not bringing Carbon forward to 64-bit." The writing has been on the wall every since Carbon and Cocoa were unveiled. I think a decade is enough time for everyone to get the hint and prepare their plans, don't you?
How many pro apps has Apple ported from Carbon to Cocoa? Do they intend to port any, actually? One suspects we'll see the Pro Apps UI toolbox inherit what's left of Carbon64's development and so sidestep the issue.
That's an interesting idea, and a possibility. Kind of underhanded if so, but I'm betting that they'll be Cocoa up top.
Remember, as the years have progressed, most of the Carbon functionality has been pulled out of Carbon and put in Core*, which Carbon then calls. And so does Cocoa. *Most* of what devs expected in Carbon should still be available, just through a different API. Not all of it, obviously, but they get a lot of other things for free instead.
I'll be interested to see that list of apps that are Carbon, Cocoa, and when they changed over.
No one said it was easy, but that it was necessary... and no one expected it to be fast, which is why there was a what, *9 year gap* between "Carbon is for legacy code" and "By the way... we're not bringing Carbon forward to 64-bit." The writing has been on the wall every since Carbon and Cocoa were unveiled. I think a decade is enough time for everyone to get the hint and prepare their plans, don't you?
But don't forget that up until mid 2007, Apple was telling devs that they WERE bringing carbon to 64 bit. There's no question that devs would have started things sooner and made different plans if Apple had said that carbon wouldn't make the jump in the first place.
And if nine years is such a long time to get the message and switch things over, then why hasn't apple done it with most of their OWN apps?
But don't forget that up until mid 2007, Apple was telling devs that they WERE bringing carbon to 64 bit. There's no question that devs would have started things sooner and made different plans if Apple had said that carbon wouldn't make the jump in the first place.
That would be the assholish bit I mentioned earlier. Pulling it out from under devs was not nice, but OTOH, they *had* had a number of years to make plans, right?
"Carbon is going away, move to Cocoa."
"Oh, ok. Um... how's that 64-bit Carbon coming?"
"Great! Hey... waitaminnit..."
Without knowing anything about the specifics, my wild assed guess is that 64bit Carbon ran into some difficulties, and they realized that if they just stopped it, they'd finally force that move to Cocoa they'd been trying to get people to do since before MacOS X arrived. As long as it was going well, they were willing to do it, but once snags were hit, the headache to fix it was larger than continued legacy support would be in the future.
Quote:
And if nine years is such a long time to get the message and switch things over, then why hasn't apple done it with most of their OWN apps?
It's called 'eating your own dog food'. If you are producing the APIs for your development community, it's in your best interest to write some of your own critical apps in it.
Devs make decisions based on Apple announcements, not speculation based on "the direction Apple apps were taking for their UI". And up until mid 2007, Apple was telling devs that Carbon would work for 64 bit.
So specifically which Apple apps are on Cocoa now? I'm particularly interested in pro apps. Is there a list somewhere? Is there an easy way to tell from looking at the app?
Drag a highlighted text snippet from a text field to the desktop. If it works it is a Cocoa app.
Quote:
That would imply that Apple itself gets that Cocoa is the way to go, and that the smart move would be starting to switch to Cocoa years ago. So again, how many apple apps are Cocoa?
Can you really blame any company for not supporting something that apple hardly uses themselves?
Apple uses it quite a bit. But Apple has also said for years Carbon is not a second class citizen and HAD to code Pro apps in Carbon to prove the move to OS X was even viable for large third party devs. Now Apple is saying Carbon is just fine for existing 32-bit apps, but they aren't going to extend it for 64-bitness. Why, this reduces their out year API development and QA effort by nearly half. They will be able to do more things rather than the same things twice. And yes, Apple is moving apps over to Cocoa as it make sense to do so.
Where did you hear that, or is that just speculation?
People who have been to music trade shows and actually talked to guys on the Logic dev team have said that the word from them is that they have NO plans to update Logic to 64 bit, and that if they did, the app would take a major performance hit (which I have a hard time believing).
Hopefully both apps are getting ported to 64 bit, but is there any evidence that that's actually happnening?
Or that we'll see the result before the 64 bit version of the Adobe apps ship?
LOGIC->Replacement to LOGIC in 64 bit and evolutionary but written in 64 bit Cocoa.
Drag a highlighted text snippet from a text field to the desktop. If it works it is a Cocoa app.
Apple uses it quite a bit. But Apple has also said for years Carbon is not a second class citizen and HAD to code Pro apps in Carbon to prove the move to OS X was even viable for large third party devs. Now Apple is saying Carbon is just fine for existing 32-bit apps, but they aren't going to extend it for 64-bitness. Why, this reduces their out year API development and QA effort by nearly half. They will be able to do more things rather than the same things twice. And yes, Apple is moving apps over to Cocoa as it make sense to do so.
Now that Carbon is freaking dead let's clear the airwaves.
CARBON WAS ALWAYS A SECOND CLASS PLATFORM.
Politically, they had to make it First Class to save face and keep Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft on-board.
Having worked at NeXT I saw how quickly large 3rd party houses can kill a platform--no apps from them and the platform suddenly isn't viable.
NOTHING ADOBE AND MICROSOFT CAN DO WEAKENS APPLE NOW.
They either write their applications in Cocoa or lose out on markets and profits that Apple will gladly soak up or work with other 3rd party devs that have promising applications to fill the void.
I suggest those that can't figure this out, sign up for an NDA Developer Account--the freebie is great but you aren't really in the loop, download Xcode 3.1 and write Cocoa code.
Nice ad hominem, that's not a tired internet cliché at all.
So if the topic isn't interesting to you, why are you still following the thread about it? And why do you think that anyone here cares if one random anonymous schmuck on the internet thinks it's interesting?
That wasn't an ad-hominem, it was an admonishment. As I said, try reading more carefully.
Anyway, these forums are for discussion. If you don't like what I'm discussing don't read it (which you're mostly not doing anyway).
Carbon was only a huge issue with the big, bloated laggards: Adobe, Microsoft and Intuit.
Adobe has been inflicting a Windows-like UI on its Mac base for years, Microsoft has been looking for ways to keep the Mac in its place, and Intuit has been just plain lazy.
Of the three, only Photoshop is viewed as a must have anymore. Quark is 1000x better than before, OpenOffice will be out before year end, and there are 5 or 6 good alternatives to Quicken.
If they want to keep their historical status, I say let them fight for it.
The whole platform shouldn't be held back by three laggards.
Apple's given a lot of mixed messages on the relative weighting of Cocoa and Carbon. While I agree with you that Apple's made it clearer in the last few years, there was little reason to suspect in mid-2007 that Apple would drop 64-bit Carbon, especially after demoing and releasing it.
mdriftmeyer is absolutely right. It has been clear for a full decade that Carbon is transitional and temporary. I'll go further and say that it was a stupid mistake for Apple to ever do any development on 64 bit Carbon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by codymr
I didn't catch it in the article, but will 10.6 run on a Core Duo system? Or is Snow Leopard going to drop support for 32bit systems entirely? Forgive my ignorance... I'm not really up on this stuff so I need the experts to dumb it down a shade.
Snow Leopard would certainly be the sensible time to drop support for both PPC and 32 bit Intel. Legacy code should not be maintained forever. If you want the benefits of Snow Leopard, buy a Mac produced after 2005.
Now that Carbon is freaking dead let's clear the airwaves.
CARBON WAS ALWAYS A SECOND CLASS PLATFORM.
Politically, they had to make it First Class to save face and keep Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft on-board.
That's what I said, minus the second sentence editorial.
Quote:
Having worked at NeXT I saw how quickly large 3rd party houses can kill a platform--no apps from them and the platform suddenly isn't viable.
NOTHING ADOBE AND MICROSOFT CAN DO WEAKENS APPLE NOW.
They either write their applications in Cocoa or lose out on markets and profits that Apple will gladly soak up or work with other 3rd party devs that have promising applications to fill the void.
I suggest those that can't figure this out, sign up for an NDA Developer Account--the freebie is great but you aren't really in the loop, download Xcode 3.1 and write Cocoa code.
If you want to keep current I suggest you keep in the loop.
Either way, speculating about Apple not moving it's tools to Cocoa really shows you know nothing of the history of NeXT nor today's Apple Engineering.
WhereTF did that all come from? Did you even read what you quoted? You certainly weren't replying to anything in my post after the CARBON EDITORIAL. I have no problems with that line, dev's perception doesn't need to mesh with Apple's message, and I was relating the message. I agree fully that moving away from Carbon is a Good Thing™, I even gave a reason why!
I don't tend to be as vitriolic as you were on whether the Apple message and reality are in sync, Apple said from WWDC in 1999 that Cocoa was the way to go for all new apps, but that Carbon would maintain feature equivalence for existing apps. That message NEVER changed, that's all I said. If you want to call that second class, I won't argue, but I think it's a tad over the top.
After that, I said absolutely nothing about Apple not moving to Cocoa. Actually I said the opposite. So either READ THE POST; or break out the multi-quote goodness to point the ire at the real recipient; or chop your responses into separate posts.
Safari? - not inherited but again cross platform reasoning
Final Cut - partly inherited
Logic - inherited
Filemaker - old and cross platform
Everything else, especially the in-house born stuff is Cocoa including iLife, iWork, Aperture... and it shows or maybe they just hide it well.
I just can't bear to even look at some of the old Carbon UI products from MS and Adobe and for that matter Firefox. They're just horrible. Unfortunately I have to use them occasionally but more and more I'm picking Mac only apps for web development and use.
Comments
If you'd actually bothered to read any of the discussion you'd realise I'd already said exactly that. I was addressing another question: The question is if it's an interesting topic or a issue for your average reader. The answer is no.
Nice ad hominem, that's not a tired internet cliché at all.
So if the topic isn't interesting to you, why are you still following the thread about it? And why do you think that anyone here cares if one random anonymous schmuck on the internet thinks it's interesting?
Since Aperture is fairly new, I imagine it will be relatively trivial to make it 64-bit in the next revision.
And Phenomenon (Shake's successor) will be 64-bit out of the gate.
What other Pro Apps does Apple have that would require 64-bitness?
snafu: care to explain how Cocoa is any worse for cross-platform production than Carbon? They're both proprietary Mac-only APIs, they both can call C and C++...
Yes, that is so, but it is easier to map multiplatform UI features to Carbon or create new ones based on it, and that avenue is closed for 64bit. When most comments talk about separating the program's logic from the program's UI, they seem to assume that the UI is the easy part, and that's not necessarily so, when one considers, say, Maya's UI or After Effects'. Cocoa won't cover for their needs in a straightforward way.
Anyway, it feels a bit forced to do a "what was Adobe thinking all these years", as if it was so easy peasy a porty: how many gigantic apps is CS3 composed of? A dozen or so, plus a inmense community of plug-in developers which will have to rewrite (again!) their products (we'll see how many we lose this time). It's not trivial, it was even less so in the past, and they gain nothing but 64bitness and a big headache testing and reoptimizing things.
Anyway, of course they are going to do it: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04...hop_lr_64.html
How many pro apps has Apple ported from Carbon to Cocoa? Do they intend to port any, actually? One suspects we'll see the Pro Apps UI toolbox inherit what's left of Carbon64's development and so sidestep the issue.
Isn't it well known that FCP and Logic are undergoing huge rewrites to make them 64-bit ready?
Where did you hear that, or is that just speculation?
People who have been to music trade shows and actually talked to guys on the Logic dev team have said that the word from them is that they have NO plans to update Logic to 64 bit, and that if they did, the app would take a major performance hit (which I have a hard time believing).
Hopefully both apps are getting ported to 64 bit, but is there any evidence that that's actually happnening?
Or that we'll see the result before the 64 bit version of the Adobe apps ship?
Yes, that is so, but it is easier to map multiplatform UI features to Carbon or create new ones based on it, and that avenue is closed for 64bit.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't, as a blanket statement. Carbon may feel more familiar to someone coming from Win32 or an X environment, but that's because it's similarly a legacy design. Callbacks, resource maps, and all those things we all thought were so slick 20 years ago are kind of outdated these days.
Furthermore, if someone ports their UI from another platform to the Mac, and expects to be able to just slip in some Carbon-style callbacks, calls, and so on into their other-platform UI, and have it work, well... it'll *work*, but it's going to look like *ass*. Mac users will notice, even if no one else does. If you want to play in the Mac sandbox professionally you need to step up and create a *Mac UI*. That's all there is to it.
Given that constraint, the UI code is likely to be very Mac-specific, even if it Carbon. The cross-platform argument goes out the window at the UI level, for any serious developer's app, if you ask me. Back-end? Sure! Knock yourself out. Build up those C and C++ libraries for all platforms - I do it that way too. But there's no reason why a Cocoa UI can't call into them just like a Carbon UI.
When most comments talk about separating the program's logic from the program's UI, they seem to assume that the UI is the easy part, and that's not necessarily so, when one considers, say, Maya's UI or After Effects'. Cocoa won't cover for their needs in a straightforward way.
This is quite true. UI design is a pain in the butt, which is why so few developers manage to get it right, or even in the ballpark.
Anyway, it feels a bit forced to do a "what was Adobe thinking all these years", as if it was so easy peasy a porty: how many gigantic apps is CS3 composed of? A dozen or so, plus a inmense community of plug-in developers which will have to rewrite (again!) their products (we'll see how many we lose this time). It's not trivial, it was even less so in the past, and they gain nothing but 64bitness and a big headache testing and reoptimizing things.
No one said it was easy, but that it was necessary... and no one expected it to be fast, which is why there was a what, *9 year gap* between "Carbon is for legacy code" and "By the way... we're not bringing Carbon forward to 64-bit." The writing has been on the wall every since Carbon and Cocoa were unveiled. I think a decade is enough time for everyone to get the hint and prepare their plans, don't you?
Anyway, of course they are going to do it: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04...hop_lr_64.html
Of course. They don't have much choice.
How many pro apps has Apple ported from Carbon to Cocoa? Do they intend to port any, actually? One suspects we'll see the Pro Apps UI toolbox inherit what's left of Carbon64's development and so sidestep the issue.
That's an interesting idea, and a possibility. Kind of underhanded if so, but I'm betting that they'll be Cocoa up top.
Remember, as the years have progressed, most of the Carbon functionality has been pulled out of Carbon and put in Core*, which Carbon then calls. And so does Cocoa. *Most* of what devs expected in Carbon should still be available, just through a different API. Not all of it, obviously, but they get a lot of other things for free instead.
I'll be interested to see that list of apps that are Carbon, Cocoa, and when they changed over.
No one said it was easy, but that it was necessary... and no one expected it to be fast, which is why there was a what, *9 year gap* between "Carbon is for legacy code" and "By the way... we're not bringing Carbon forward to 64-bit." The writing has been on the wall every since Carbon and Cocoa were unveiled. I think a decade is enough time for everyone to get the hint and prepare their plans, don't you?
But don't forget that up until mid 2007, Apple was telling devs that they WERE bringing carbon to 64 bit. There's no question that devs would have started things sooner and made different plans if Apple had said that carbon wouldn't make the jump in the first place.
And if nine years is such a long time to get the message and switch things over, then why hasn't apple done it with most of their OWN apps?
But don't forget that up until mid 2007, Apple was telling devs that they WERE bringing carbon to 64 bit. There's no question that devs would have started things sooner and made different plans if Apple had said that carbon wouldn't make the jump in the first place.
That would be the assholish bit I mentioned earlier. Pulling it out from under devs was not nice, but OTOH, they *had* had a number of years to make plans, right?
"Carbon is going away, move to Cocoa."
"Oh, ok. Um... how's that 64-bit Carbon coming?"
"Great! Hey... waitaminnit..."
Without knowing anything about the specifics, my wild assed guess is that 64bit Carbon ran into some difficulties, and they realized that if they just stopped it, they'd finally force that move to Cocoa they'd been trying to get people to do since before MacOS X arrived. As long as it was going well, they were willing to do it, but once snags were hit, the headache to fix it was larger than continued legacy support would be in the future.
And if nine years is such a long time to get the message and switch things over, then why hasn't apple done it with most of their OWN apps?
It's called 'eating your own dog food'. If you are producing the APIs for your development community, it's in your best interest to write some of your own critical apps in it.
Devs make decisions based on Apple announcements, not speculation based on "the direction Apple apps were taking for their UI". And up until mid 2007, Apple was telling devs that Carbon would work for 64 bit.
So specifically which Apple apps are on Cocoa now? I'm particularly interested in pro apps. Is there a list somewhere? Is there an easy way to tell from looking at the app?
Drag a highlighted text snippet from a text field to the desktop. If it works it is a Cocoa app.
That would imply that Apple itself gets that Cocoa is the way to go, and that the smart move would be starting to switch to Cocoa years ago. So again, how many apple apps are Cocoa?
Can you really blame any company for not supporting something that apple hardly uses themselves?
Apple uses it quite a bit. But Apple has also said for years Carbon is not a second class citizen and HAD to code Pro apps in Carbon to prove the move to OS X was even viable for large third party devs. Now Apple is saying Carbon is just fine for existing 32-bit apps, but they aren't going to extend it for 64-bitness. Why, this reduces their out year API development and QA effort by nearly half. They will be able to do more things rather than the same things twice. And yes, Apple is moving apps over to Cocoa as it make sense to do so.
Where did you hear that, or is that just speculation?
People who have been to music trade shows and actually talked to guys on the Logic dev team have said that the word from them is that they have NO plans to update Logic to 64 bit, and that if they did, the app would take a major performance hit (which I have a hard time believing).
Hopefully both apps are getting ported to 64 bit, but is there any evidence that that's actually happnening?
Or that we'll see the result before the 64 bit version of the Adobe apps ship?
LOGIC->Replacement to LOGIC in 64 bit and evolutionary but written in 64 bit Cocoa.
Drag a highlighted text snippet from a text field to the desktop. If it works it is a Cocoa app.
Apple uses it quite a bit. But Apple has also said for years Carbon is not a second class citizen and HAD to code Pro apps in Carbon to prove the move to OS X was even viable for large third party devs. Now Apple is saying Carbon is just fine for existing 32-bit apps, but they aren't going to extend it for 64-bitness. Why, this reduces their out year API development and QA effort by nearly half. They will be able to do more things rather than the same things twice. And yes, Apple is moving apps over to Cocoa as it make sense to do so.
Now that Carbon is freaking dead let's clear the airwaves.
CARBON WAS ALWAYS A SECOND CLASS PLATFORM.
Politically, they had to make it First Class to save face and keep Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft on-board.
Having worked at NeXT I saw how quickly large 3rd party houses can kill a platform--no apps from them and the platform suddenly isn't viable.
NOTHING ADOBE AND MICROSOFT CAN DO WEAKENS APPLE NOW.
They either write their applications in Cocoa or lose out on markets and profits that Apple will gladly soak up or work with other 3rd party devs that have promising applications to fill the void.
I suggest those that can't figure this out, sign up for an NDA Developer Account--the freebie is great but you aren't really in the loop, download Xcode 3.1 and write Cocoa code.
LLVM and the future of Apple's Dev Tools: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2008-08/
If you want to keep current I suggest you keep in the loop.
Either way, speculating about Apple not moving it's tools to Cocoa really shows you know nothing of the history of NeXT nor today's Apple Engineering.
I've been looking for one, but none of them offer online classes.
Very good.
I think Melgross is doing the same for 3G... and he is in NYC.
It was a close call for a while.
Nice ad hominem, that's not a tired internet cliché at all.
So if the topic isn't interesting to you, why are you still following the thread about it? And why do you think that anyone here cares if one random anonymous schmuck on the internet thinks it's interesting?
That wasn't an ad-hominem, it was an admonishment. As I said, try reading more carefully.
Anyway, these forums are for discussion. If you don't like what I'm discussing don't read it (which you're mostly not doing anyway).
Carbon was only a huge issue with the big, bloated laggards: Adobe, Microsoft and Intuit.
Adobe has been inflicting a Windows-like UI on its Mac base for years, Microsoft has been looking for ways to keep the Mac in its place, and Intuit has been just plain lazy.
Of the three, only Photoshop is viewed as a must have anymore. Quark is 1000x better than before, OpenOffice will be out before year end, and there are 5 or 6 good alternatives to Quicken.
If they want to keep their historical status, I say let them fight for it.
The whole platform shouldn't be held back by three laggards.
Now that Carbon is freaking dead let's clear the airwaves.
STANDING OVATION
Thank you.
LLVM and the future of Apple's Dev Tools: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2008-08/
Hear, hear. I love me some llvm. Oh, the possibilities.
Apple's given a lot of mixed messages on the relative weighting of Cocoa and Carbon. While I agree with you that Apple's made it clearer in the last few years, there was little reason to suspect in mid-2007 that Apple would drop 64-bit Carbon, especially after demoing and releasing it.
mdriftmeyer is absolutely right. It has been clear for a full decade that Carbon is transitional and temporary. I'll go further and say that it was a stupid mistake for Apple to ever do any development on 64 bit Carbon.
I didn't catch it in the article, but will 10.6 run on a Core Duo system? Or is Snow Leopard going to drop support for 32bit systems entirely? Forgive my ignorance... I'm not really up on this stuff so I need the experts to dumb it down a shade.
Snow Leopard would certainly be the sensible time to drop support for both PPC and 32 bit Intel. Legacy code should not be maintained forever. If you want the benefits of Snow Leopard, buy a Mac produced after 2005.
Now that Carbon is freaking dead let's clear the airwaves.
CARBON WAS ALWAYS A SECOND CLASS PLATFORM.
Politically, they had to make it First Class to save face and keep Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft on-board.
That's what I said, minus the second sentence editorial.
Having worked at NeXT I saw how quickly large 3rd party houses can kill a platform--no apps from them and the platform suddenly isn't viable.
NOTHING ADOBE AND MICROSOFT CAN DO WEAKENS APPLE NOW.
They either write their applications in Cocoa or lose out on markets and profits that Apple will gladly soak up or work with other 3rd party devs that have promising applications to fill the void.
I suggest those that can't figure this out, sign up for an NDA Developer Account--the freebie is great but you aren't really in the loop, download Xcode 3.1 and write Cocoa code.
LLVM and the future of Apple's Dev Tools: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2008-08/
If you want to keep current I suggest you keep in the loop.
Either way, speculating about Apple not moving it's tools to Cocoa really shows you know nothing of the history of NeXT nor today's Apple Engineering.
WhereTF did that all come from? Did you even read what you quoted? You certainly weren't replying to anything in my post after the CARBON EDITORIAL. I have no problems with that line, dev's perception doesn't need to mesh with Apple's message, and I was relating the message. I agree fully that moving away from Carbon is a Good Thing™, I even gave a reason why!
I don't tend to be as vitriolic as you were on whether the Apple message and reality are in sync, Apple said from WWDC in 1999 that Cocoa was the way to go for all new apps, but that Carbon would maintain feature equivalence for existing apps. That message NEVER changed, that's all I said. If you want to call that second class, I won't argue, but I think it's a tad over the top.
After that, I said absolutely nothing about Apple not moving to Cocoa. Actually I said the opposite. So either READ THE POST; or break out the multi-quote goodness to point the ire at the real recipient; or chop your responses into separate posts.
iTunes - inherited but there's quite possibly cross platform reasoning there.
Safari? - not inherited but again cross platform reasoning
Final Cut - partly inherited
Logic - inherited
Filemaker - old and cross platform
Everything else, especially the in-house born stuff is Cocoa including iLife, iWork, Aperture... and it shows or maybe they just hide it well.
I just can't bear to even look at some of the old Carbon UI products from MS and Adobe and for that matter Firefox. They're just horrible. Unfortunately I have to use them occasionally but more and more I'm picking Mac only apps for web development and use.
How can one tell what apps are written in Carbon and in Cocoa?
I'd like to put together a list of the current apps that we have for both formats and then do it for each OS X version.