Apple posts expanded WWDC07 Sessions list

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    This was mentioned up the page, but I know for a fact that Microsoft was actively looking into moving all of their development for Mac over to Cocoa about 2 years ago. Not sure where that effort went, but they made offers to some folks who are Cocoa gurus back then.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BuonRotto View Post


    This was mentioned up the page, but I know for a fact that Microsoft was actively looking into moving all of their development for Mac over to Cocoa about 2 years ago. Not sure where that effort went, but they made offers to some folks who are Cocoa gurus back then.



    Wow. For what it's worth that's great. It's to bad that Office 2007 for Mac looks like cow dung.
  • Reply 23 of 30
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    Since session 137 isn't in the free ADC on iTunes list, I'm assuming you want to edit that post.





    It has been passed by my crack team of legal analysts and they have unanimously concluded that it contains no information that is not now public, with the exception of Julio Gonzalez' name.
  • Reply 24 of 30
    xdanielxdaniel Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Keen. God, I remember being at WWDC when ATSUI was introduced, and being touted as the UberSolution. Heh.



    I would love to see CoreText get rid of (or at least depreciate) AAT in place of a standardizerd OpenType solution. The stuff that AAT can do (auto-ligatures, contextuals, etc.) can all be done with OpenType -- Plus, you can actually BUY new cool OpenType fonts with these advanced features... AND then use them InDesign and QuarkXpress, etc. With AAT, you have cool fonts that are great for TextEdit but pointless for Professional Design work.
  • Reply 25 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xdaniel View Post


    I would love to see CoreText get rid of (or at least depreciate) AAT in place of a standardizerd OpenType solution. The stuff that AAT can do (auto-ligatures, contextuals, etc.) can all be done with OpenType -- Plus, you can actually BUY new cool OpenType fonts with these advanced features... AND then use them InDesign and QuarkXpress, etc. With AAT, you have cool fonts that are great for TextEdit but pointless for Professional Design work.



    CoreText does not replace ATSUI. ATSUI is implemented on top of CoreText. CoreText moves the heavy lifting of glyph creation out of ATSUI and into a new API. CoreText was deemed necessary because many applications were using ATSUI to do simple things like draw a line of text in their UI, because no other Unicode-aware APIs existed (QuickDraw being very un-Unicode aware and deprecated). Cocoa and Carbon will still use ATSUI to do heavy text management. CoreText also <b>finally</b> gives developers an alternative to the deprecated QuickDraw font and style management functions.



    Also I don't see why there's so much animosity towards Carbon. You guys do realize that a lot of Cocoa's innards are implemented on top of Carbon? Heck, AppKit.framework links to several Carbon frameworks and several hundred Carbon APIs. A simple nm on Cocoa.framework reveals that Cocoa uses the Carbon Appearance Manager, Apple Event Manager, Icon Manager, Event Manager, File Manager, Folder Manager, Process Manager, Scrap Manager, Menu Manager and Window Manager (I count anything pre-OS X as Carbon). And don't blame this on needing to interact with Carbon; otool AppKit and you'll see that they use the Menu Manager to implement NSMenu, etc. (it's also a widely known fact that any Apple engineer at WWDC will confirm but otool is more fun).



    What is "Carbon" and what is "Cocoa" has been pretty blurry lately and will most likely become even more blurred as Apple allows more integration of the two frameworks, and borrows code from one framework to implement in another.
  • Reply 26 of 30
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    It's not only new, it's fantastic. Easy and fast.



    So we spend months discussing why iWork has not shipped, and no one bothers to mention till now that this CoreText is new and becoming public in 10.5?



  • Reply 27 of 30
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    So we spend months discussing why iWork has not shipped, and no one bothers to mention till now that this CoreText is new and becoming public in 10.5?







    It's not new, but in Tiger, it's a limited and private (therefore undocumented API).



    This has actually been mentioned a number of times here.
  • Reply 28 of 30
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    with the exception of Julio Gonzalez' name



    OMG, finally we have some leaked info. Put it on the front page.



    I watched one of the Mac OS X State of the Union things and it had a demo of Core Animation. It looked pretty cool. I'm not too interested in it though. As long as leopard is faster.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rmcgann220


    What is "Carbon" and what is "Cocoa" has been pretty blurry lately and will most likely become even more blurred as Apple allows more integration of the two frameworks, and borrows code from one framework to implement in another.



    I think it's one of those things that has developed through marketing. Carbon suggests old and Cocoa suggests the new OS X way of life. I think if someone said that carbon was dead at the WWDC and just took all the Carbon functionality and put it under the Cocoa title, people would be pretty happy. As long as they don't hear the word Carbon again.



    It is probably confusing to programmers new to OS X, especially if they are raised on C/C++ to then be told they should make a carbon project in Xcode and if they are to make a Cocoa app they need to learn Objective-C - I know that it feels like you are being coerced into learning a language you may not want to use. I personally think that things would be much easier if Xcode just had a template to build an application, no mention of either Cocoa or Carbon and then allow the developer to use whatever language they want and the compiler would know how to compile it.
  • Reply 29 of 30
    vl-tonevl-tone Posts: 337member
    In the "Session 200 - Graphics and Media State of the Union" movie from WWDC 2006 (found on the free "ADC on iTunes" section) I've noticed some very interesting tidbit.



    When talking about Core Animation, the presenter explained the motivations behind its creation. He said something to the effect that Apple was getting many requests from devs to give them access to the private APIs of the Window Server, and that Core Animation was created as a foundation that would be useful for the kind of things that developers wanted to do with windows.



    Anyone have seen the "Fenêtres Volantes" Screen Saver? It takes your current windows and make them fly around in 3d space. If you dig in the bundle, you'll find that it's a Quartz Composer presentation, but it uses some custom Cocoa code plug-in to get the windows images.



    The developer explained somewhere that he had to rely on some undocumented hack to pull it off, as Apple doesn't provide an official way to get the windows images in Tiger. The main problem with this hack (aside from the fact that it's undocumented) is that it's really slow, so the content is not updated live.



    From what I understood in this WWDC 2006 presentation, it's implied that Apple will provide direct access to windows image buffers via (or to) Core Animation, and I bet that live-updating will be just as smooth as in Exposé.



    So if Apple give third-parties the possibility to manipulate windows to create Exposé variations and/or some 3d interface things Ã*-la-Beryl, don't you think it's very possible that Apple themselves will integrate some system-wide pseudo-3d stuff in Leopard's interface? We already saw an example in Time Machine, but I somehow doubt it'll be the only place we'll see that kind of effect on windows.



    I know that these "Leopard will be 3d!!" predictions are getting old, but it's the kind of "Top Secret" feature that wouldn't necessarily require notifying developers in advance, just like Exposé.



    Like it or not, many people are impressed by Flip3d in Vista, even if Exposé is more useful. Apple has to show to the masses that Leopard is years ahead of Vista. I'm sure they can pull-off something that will not only look good, but will also be useful.
  • Reply 30 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I think it's one of those things that has developed through marketing. Carbon suggests old and Cocoa suggests the new OS X way of life. I think if someone said that carbon was dead at the WWDC and just took all the Carbon functionality and put it under the Cocoa title, people would be pretty happy. As long as they don't hear the word Carbon again.



    Um, I don't think anyone would be fooled.... the difference between Cocoa and Carbon is night and day.



    Quote:

    It is probably confusing to programmers new to OS X, especially if they are raised on C/C++ to then be told they should make a carbon project in Xcode and if they are to make a Cocoa app they need to learn Objective-C - I know that it feels like you are being coerced into learning a language you may not want to use. I personally think that things would be much easier if Xcode just had a template to build an application, no mention of either Cocoa or Carbon and then allow the developer to use whatever language they want and the compiler would know how to compile it.



    There is... it's called the "Empty" template.



    Aside from that, you can freely mix Carbon and Cocoa regardless of which template you choose provided you set each file to Objective-C++ so the compiler is prepared for both C++ and Objective-C code.
Sign In or Register to comment.