OSNews:

OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19816/From_Win32_to_Cocoa_Part_III Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:13:26 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316607 http://osnews.com/thread?316607 It was sad to know that the java bridge was deprecated by apple. There was a time when Java used to be a first class citizen on OS X. Sadly that is not the case anymore.

The good news is that the Ruby Cocoa bridge is still there. So programmers who dont wanna learn Objective C do have a chance of writing good apps.

Of course Apple itself broke Drb in ruby as a part of the 10.5.3 update: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/154556

OS X may not be the developer's heaven as it is made out to be. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ManishChaks) Comments RE: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316608 http://osnews.com/thread?316608

... So programmers who dont wanna learn Objective C do have a chance of writing good apps.

I recently wanted to write a Windows application that included a text box in a menu, similar to the "search" menus found in Mac OS X. In the end, I gave up. Windows does support menus, but if you don't want a menu that acts 100% like the built-in menus, you're basically on your own. There is a way to control how the menu is drawn, so instead of taking the standard appearance you can give it a custom one, but that's an all-or-nothing proposition. You can't have a menu that looks like a standard menu except for one item; either the menu is standard, or it's custom, with nothing in between.

This is how you do a menu with a textbox in .net

Not exactly rocket science...

Welcome to 2006. Winforms has been deprecated for a very long time now. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316613 http://osnews.com/thread?316613

OS X may not be the developer's heaven as it is made out to be.

Oh please...

Java developers value portability. Java + Cocoa ties you to OS X while incurring the overhead of the JVM. Ergo, few (any?) developers used the Java Cocoa bridge. Right from the start, it was a solution going in search of a problem.

No one, not even Java developers mourn the demise of the Java Cocoa bridge. Neither should you. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316614 http://osnews.com/thread?316614

This is how you do a menu with a textbox in .net Not exactly rocket science... Welcome to 2006. Winforms has been deprecated for a very long time now.

That's all well and good, but it's still slightly irrelevant. How many end user applications are written in .NET? How easy is that to accomplish in C++ unmanaged code which is what the majority of desktop applications use? Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[2]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316617 http://osnews.com/thread?316617

I hope it doesn't sound impolite, but... you usually don't "learn" ObjC, you *do* it - at least if you come from a C programming background. As you mentioned, ObjC is a superset of C, while, for example, C++ is another language, and so is JAVA. So let's assume you have good C knowledge, did some C++ and are familiar with concepts from the field of object orientation, then ObjC won't be a hard learning time for you. And if you're familiar with JAVA, ObjC isn't a big deal, too, because many elements of the language will look familiar to you. For non-Apple programmers, a look at GNUstep on x86 is worth taking.

At least I may say this from my individual experiences, maybe it's different when you're coming from "VisualBasic". :-) Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Doc Pain) Comments RE[2]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316628 http://osnews.com/thread?316628

How many end user applications are written in .NET?

AFAIK obj-c is managed (it has gc, so it almost has to be)

Regardless, I would say 90-95% of windows apps are managed. Only the most performance sensitive stuff is written in unmanaged code nowadays, and we are even starting to see that phased out.

If you want to talk deprecated, nothing written in the last decade should have been using c++. On windows anyways.Edited 2008-06-02 13:36 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[3]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316629 http://osnews.com/thread?316629 I disagree with that. Java/C++/C# i would say are about 90% the same, obj-c is closer to 60%. It is more like c++ with a dash of smalltalk then Java/C# which are more C++ with problems fixed. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[3]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316630 http://osnews.com/thread?316630 "I would say 90-95%. Only the most performance sensitive stuff is written in unmanaged code nowadays, and we are even starting to see that phased out.

If you want to talk deprecated, nothing written in the last decade should have been using c++."

That's true of internal corporate apps, where performance and end user experience matter less, and a lot of code is "throw-away".

Anything public facing, shrink-wrapped proprietary or open source, or otherwise, and desktop or systems oriented, is almost always C/C++.

For software that is not forced on it's users (like internal corporate apps), performance, lnf, and overall end user satisfaction, matter very very much. If all those things are not excellent, the software is ignored. For accomplishing these things, C/C++ usually offer the best solutions. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JeffS) Comments RE[3]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316631 http://osnews.com/thread?316631

If you want to talk deprecated, nothing written in the last decade should have been using c++. On windows anyways.

Woah, now that's something unusual

The question I'd ask as a reply to that is something like "says who?". This depends on so many factors, that stating something like this is more like the 640K should be enough that anything else. Just as one example, where I do my stuff, we develop mostly algorithms, with the gui coming much later, and since almost all the algorithms are written in c++ and on windows, it comes easier to create an mfc gui for it. We also use c# and Java when the need arises, but it's not a goal, it's the tool. I never use a language or a tool because it's suddenly fashionable, I always use that in which I can do what I have to do more conveniently - from a certain point of view. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (l3v1) Comments RE[3]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316632 http://osnews.com/thread?316632

AFAIK obj-c is managed (it has gc, so it almost has to be)

Objective-C code is *not* managed. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lurch_mojoff) Comments Costly Dev tools http://osnews.com/thread?316633 http://osnews.com/thread?316633 Strange, but IIRC, I once read about how Windows gained market share by charging people for their dev tools rather than give them away.

IIRC, it goes like this: In those times, hardware prices are sky high, so Windows dev tools, at those times, looked cheap, especially compared to those UNIX ones. Moreover, Microsoft opened up their specs and so there was a lot of freeware compilers that were lousy, but got the job done. This allowed hobbyists and professionals alike to be drawn to the Wintel platform. When they achieved dominance, the cost of a dev licence hindered freeware development and this, in turn, allowed Microsoft to quality control the software produced for Wintel, to a small but noticeable extent.

However, I would agree that leeching off developers is a suicidal move since they are any platform's greatest asset. Not the users, but the developers. Just ask any open source developer in touch with the times.

Moreover, notice how hardware prices have plummeted for the past decades. If Microsoft kept the hardware to dev tool price ratio, I would bet that those dev tools will have to cost less than to make a burger. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (xiaokj) Comments RE[4]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316638 http://osnews.com/thread?316638 How would you implement garbage collection without a garbage collector? a google of http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
leads me to believe there is a vm. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[3]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316640 http://osnews.com/thread?316640 Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.

You also seem to have this problem with dates.

10 years ago was 1998 - Microsoft were still trying to get away with using a modified, non-standard version of Java.

The first release of the .Net framework was in 2002 - a mere 6 years ago. It wasn't usable for anything much until version 2, released in 2006. Realistically, developers could have started writing end-user apps in 2006. That's only two years ago.

As for WPF, that's only available in .Net 3.0 (early 2007), and only got support from Microsoft's tools in .Net 3.5 (late 2007). Any applications written with that won't even have come close to being released yet.

Clearly, you're not a software developer. Not on Windows anyway. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ba1l) Comments RE[4]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316641 http://osnews.com/thread?316641

... It is more like c++ with a dash of smalltalk then Java/C# which are more C++ with problems fixed.

If we oversimplify thing, yes, Objective-C is C with a dash of Smalltalk, just as C++ is C with a dash of Simula. I agree that C++, Java and C# are much easier to switch between, given their common ancestry and design philosophy, but, except for a few fairly small conceptual differences (e.g. message passing vs. method calling), when it comes to syntax, design patterns and so on, Objective-C is not that drastically different from them. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lurch_mojoff) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316642 http://osnews.com/thread?316642 A GC for c / c++:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/

Just to show that it can be done without a VM.Edited 2008-06-02 14:24 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rob_mx) Comments Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316646 http://osnews.com/thread?316646 While I liked the article, I found it funny that the author portrayed Microsoft as a company that does not use its own APIs.

I guess Office, Internet Explorer, Live Messenger, Streets and Trips, Visual Studio and every other program MS has ever released were written without an api of any kind at their disposal. lol. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bit_Rapist) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316648 http://osnews.com/thread?316648

How would you implement garbage collection without a garbage collector? a google of http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
leads me to believe there is a vm.

I don't see how garbage collection necessitates VM. It can very well be implemented as a library of memory allocation/deallocation functions, that are just an interface to a garbage collection engine, meant to replace the standard memory management fuctions in the respective language. For example, this is how Boehm garbage collector library works (and I believe Objective-C uses exactly it, although don't quote me on that). Objective-C is most definitely compiled to bare-metal machine instructions.

EDIT: Oops, beaten to the punch by rob_mx.Edited 2008-06-02 14:45 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lurch_mojoff) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316649 http://osnews.com/thread?316649

How would you implement garbage collection without a garbage collector? a google of http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&...
leads me to believe there is a vm.

Looks like you're confusing memory management with managed code. Just like C++ Objective-C code is compiled down to native code, which uses the services provided by a runtime for the language-specific features, e.g. message routing. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kfet) Comments RE[4]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316650 http://osnews.com/thread?316650

Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.

The vast amount of software written for windows used to be done in VB, not C++, or VB for the front end and C++ as COM objects. Since the shift to .net, everything that used to be done in vb, and most of what used to be done in C++ is now being done in .net. If you are talking about software pushing hardware to the limits (games, cg software, etc), yes, typically it is still done in C++. Other then that it is almost totally .net (with some notable exceptions).

You also seem to have this problem with dates.

10 years ago was 1998 - Microsoft were still trying to get away with using a modified, non-standard version of Java.

I was not developing professionally on windows at the time (was a Java guy), but I have been using .net since the first beta, closer to 2000, which was 8 years ago, so it feels like a decade ;-)

The first release of the .Net framework was in 2002 - a mere 6 years ago. It wasn't usable for anything much until version 2, released in 2006. Realistically, developers could have started writing end-user apps in 2006. That's only two years ago.

Like I said, I have been writing windows stuff with .net for closer to 8 years now. Granted, they were trivial things, but still.

As for WPF, that's only available in .Net 3.0 (early 2007), and only got support from Microsoft's tools in .Net 3.5 (late 2007). Any applications written with that won't even have come close to being released yet.

3.0 was a bit before vista, which was mid 2006. There were some early tools for WPF, but the first real designers only really became available early 2007 (as an out of band CTP release).

The problem with WPF is not the tooling, it is the vast armies of Winforms developers who don't know how to code a UI with anything but a visual designer. The studio tooling for WPF is (imo) some of the best work they have done so far, which is saying something because MS does great designers. However, you need to actually know WPF to use it properly.

Clearly, you're not a software developer. Not on Windows anyway.

I've been writing software for close to 15 years now, professionally for about 8, professionally on windows for about 3. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[6]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316652 http://osnews.com/thread?316652 You are right, I stand corrected

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[4]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316655 http://osnews.com/thread?316655

Woah, now that's something unusual

Maybe I should have been more clear. The official way to develop windows apps is .net, and has been for a very long time now. You can use MFC if you want, you could even use Tcl if you really wanted to. But the api that is being actively worked on and encouraged by the guys doing the OS is .net. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[6]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316656 http://osnews.com/thread?316656 You are right, blame it on the education for the java generation

I was confusing a managed memory runtime with managed code, and was unaware you could implement it in that way Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316659 http://osnews.com/thread?316659 stop complaining about Java and OS X. There are hardly any applications that require java 1.6 and most of those are simply compiled with 1.6 and do not really use any features not present in 1.5. Also there is a 1.6 for mac although it is still not a final version. Yes it sucks that even though Sun java is not open source it takes so long to get it to MacOS but the problem is nowhere near the magnitude that it's being presented.

To me the best thing about OS X compared to windows is that you get free and very powerful development tools. Xcode is great but then again there is the issue of objective-c ... Oh and the author of the article commends Apple for being able to say enough is enough but they paid dearly for that ability and are still paying for it. Adobe anyone? I guess this is the risk of relying on 3rd party vendors but what I really respect in Apple is that they acknowledge the risks and try to offer alternatives to their valued customer base. A good example is the office suite. While it's not as powerful as MS's own it is a lot cheaper and quite capable. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cg0def) Comments I guess it comes down to this... http://osnews.com/thread?316660 http://osnews.com/thread?316660 ...right tool for the right job.

What I did like about this article was that at least it shows that there are good tools and good languages available on the Mac, some guys here may not have used a Mac before or maybe assumed it wasn't up there with other platforms...

Personally, I love Cocoa and Obj-C, but I also love Java, Ruby/Rails and Delphi too... I am just getting into MacRuby too, which might be an interesting way to write apps for the Mac too...

I like Win32 too, sure it has it's problems, but it gets you there in the end (most of the time)... I haven't used C#/.Net very much, but the little I did do was pretty cool...

Oh, just in case anyone is still wondering about how hard it is to learn Obj-C, I came from a C/C++/Java background when I first used Obj-C and had no problem adapting, very very simple... Ruby is more of a mind bender in a lot of ways (good ways ;-)

I don't think its the language that is hard, it's just learning the new APIs, that goes for .Net, JFC, Rails and so on... Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (thavith_osn) Comments RE[4]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316662 http://osnews.com/thread?316662

Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.

Oh, really? The ATI/AMD control panel comes to mind. It is quite the consumer application and has nothing to do with corporate activities other than the fact that it was produced by a corporation and is distributed by the same. And this is hardly the only example. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cg0def) Comments RE[4]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316663 http://osnews.com/thread?316663

this is more like the 640K should be enough that anything else

Oh boy! I remember upgrading my 512K computer to 640K!

It's a known fact of life you need at least 1Mb to get anything done. How was anyone getting anything done those days :-)Edited 2008-06-02 15:19 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dimosd) Comments RE: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316668 http://osnews.com/thread?316668

While I liked the article, I found it funny that the author portrayed Microsoft as a company that does not use its own APIs.

I believe the point the author was trying to make is that, for one, Apple themselves are using, for majority of their apps, the framework they are promoting as preferred for OS X development, unlike Microsoft, who still develop most of their software in Win32 instead of .Net. Also, especially when it comes to UI, most new objects in Cocoa and most new frameworks are "librarized" version of code Apple had to implement for their apps, while other frameworks (including .Net) are usually formally designed and then the features they implement are used in actual apps. I personally am still on the fence as to whether this necessarily leads to better framework quality, but still it is an approach quite different to Microsoft's. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lurch_mojoff) Comments Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316670 http://osnews.com/thread?316670 The theorical advantage of Java is portability.

- Why are the SUN's cross-plateform application (for instance Open Office) not fully written in Java ?

- Will we ever see a VirtualBox written in Java ? I doubt so...

Numerous other apps could be written using the advantage of portability, however I've never seen photoshop or Cubase written fully in Java. Now a simple clue. Portability's drawback is performance...
Beyond the portability myth are simple facts...

.Net: I'm sorry I can't think of any application that is used everyday by million of users and is written using only .Net/C#....

I have no doubt this is a great plateform for developping application I just wonder why even Microsoft doens't use it for all their home-made application...

Objective-C: Is a very simple OO language, basically an OO layer (the smalltalk way) above plain C.

In contrast, Apple uses this language in virtually all their apps. Millions of people use ObjC written applications. There are thousands applications written using ObjC and Cocoa (or GNUstep).

Guess what ? I love ObjC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (GStepper) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316671 http://osnews.com/thread?316671 I'm not against .NET but that application is really awful. Slow and bloated... Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bending Unit) Comments RE: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316672 http://osnews.com/thread?316672

.Net: I'm sorry I can't think of any application that is used everyday by million of users and is written using only .Net/C#....

Paint.net may not be used by millions but it's a good example of an excellent .Net application. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bending Unit) Comments RE[2]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316674 http://osnews.com/thread?316674

Paint.net may not be used by millions but it's a good example of an excellent .Net application.

Paint.net IS not used by millions of users.

A lot of ObjC apps are used by millions of users everyday. Do you see the difference ? Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316676 http://osnews.com/thread?316676 Visual studio is not written in .NET.
Where you'll find that XCode was written in Obj-C, using XCode.

Microsoft are not dogfooding their own .NET APIs that they are advertising as the way forward for everybody else. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316678 http://osnews.com/thread?316678 How many of Microsoft's products are written in .NET?

I'm curious because I am under the impression that the majority of their products are still written in C/C++ as Process Explorer reports very few applications using the mscor*.dll files. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316679 http://osnews.com/thread?316679 I remember upgrading from my 640k XT to a 1mb 286 and still being steamed that various memory managers ate away at my precious base memory

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JayPo) Comments RE[3]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316683 http://osnews.com/thread?316683 Paint.net IS not used by millions of users.

Paint.Net 3.31 alone has 2 millons of downloads from downloads.com (and there are other mirrors)Â´

nikon capture nx is another tool that needs .net (and judging by it's speed is using it alot) Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smashIt) Comments RE[4]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316684 http://osnews.com/thread?316684

Paint.net IS not used by millions of users.

Paint.Net 3.31 alone has 2 millons of downloads from downloads.com (and there are other mirrors)Â´

nikon capture nx is another tool that needs .net (and judging by it's speed is using it alot)

Sure numbers like this can be misinterpreted.

2 millions downloads ? This surely is a "reference" application...

Can you tell approximately how much isthe total windows user-base ?
100 millions ? 200 millions ? Let's say 200 millions (although I'm sure it's far beyond that) that means 1% of the user-base is using Paint.net... Again, 100% of the Mac OS X user-base use ObjC applications on a daily basis... You can find any numbers you want you won't change that simple fact. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[4]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316692 http://osnews.com/thread?316692

I really hope that Paint.net or nikon capture nx are not the best examples you can give of a high profile .Net apps, because their usage numbers and the category of their users somehow pale in comparison to those of, say, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Color, Logic or Aperture. (and those are just the apps made by Apple) Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lurch_mojoff) Comments RE[4]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316694 http://osnews.com/thread?316694

nikon capture nx is another tool that needs .net (and judging by it's speed is using it alot)

And that's precisely why anyone who develops software for public consumption stays away from .NET or Java. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[5]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316695 http://osnews.com/thread?316695 you can argue with your math-teacher if 2 millions qualifie as millions or not, i won't waste further time on this topic

but why don't you compare .net with an apple-language that was introduced years after the switch to OSX? Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smashIt) Comments RE[2]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316697 http://osnews.com/thread?316697 They are eating their own dogfood for new development. .Net was not around when VS was first written. The Live suite on the other hand is relatively new. Ditto with media center. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316698 http://osnews.com/thread?316698

.Net: I'm sorry I can't think of any application that is used everyday by million of users and is written using only .Net/C#....

The reason you can't is because the only way to really tell a .net app at this point (from a user point of view) is the unhandled exception dialog. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[6]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316699 http://osnews.com/thread?316699 i won't waste further time on this topic

Good Bye ! Au revoir ! Hasta luego ! Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[2]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316700 http://osnews.com/thread?316700 "Where you'll find that XCode was written in Obj-C, using XCode."

XCode was written using XCode? Really? How'd that work? I image the computers used were also powered by perpetual motion machines that self-assembled in the presence of the RDF. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316701 http://osnews.com/thread?316701 This is the worst series of fanboy articles disguised as technical. This guy has simply no clue, even if he claims to be a developer.

Pearls of wisdom:

* Summary : "WinForms is bad. Java is much better designed."
That must be because basically not a single Java desktop program is installed on ANY of my PCs while I use many Winforms ones. Go figure.

* Summary : "Apple loves developers so that's why they give developers tools out for free. Microsoft instead tries to monetize its developers... thus Microsoft don't understand that more developers means more software for your platform"
Yeah very! Could it be that Apple desperately needs more developers while Microsoft has loads of it writing new apps?

* Summary : "Great! Apple "innovated" (lol!) by introducing Core Audio, Core Video, Core Data so developers don't need to write their own modules! YaY!"
Do you mean Apple introduced what Windows provided like 13 years ago? YaY!

(and these last two are my favourites...)
* Citation: "Finally, Apple also gives away Quartz Composer, which I have to give a shout out to. Although I have no practical use for it, I'm sure someone does, and it's really rather funky."
no words for it...

* Citation: "For example, a kind of "palette" window used for inspecting and adjusting object properties was used in iPhoto and other applications. This is something that lots of software can make use of, and so with Mac OS X 10.5, a system-level palette window was introduced. Instead of a proliferation of slightly different first- and third-party implementations of the concept, Apple has taken a good idea and exposed it to any developer."
System-wide palette for developers to use... rather innovative ;-D

I mean, if this guy is pretending, he's great... really...

If he's not pretending... gosh! If I was Jobs, after reading this, I would wonder "Where the hell am I doing wrong?!?!?" ;-P Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TBPrince) Comments RE[2]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316702 http://osnews.com/thread?316702

"... So programmers who dont wanna learn Objective C do have a chance of writing good apps.

You say "learn Objective-C" as if it is this huge chore you have no hope of ever completing. Even with all the fanciness of version 2.0, Objective-C is still just sliver-thin superset of C. I think it is easier, at least in certain regards, for a Java developer to pickup Objective-C than to switch to Python of Ruby. "

Sorry, but Objective-C is crap, in my opinion. The syntax is too arcane, and the whole sender-receiver model is unnecessarily ambiguous. It makes C++ look incredibly elegant, by comparison. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[3]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316703 http://osnews.com/thread?316703 Xcode is the natural son of "Project Builder" (herited from the NeXT days). Xcode was firstly compiled with ProjectBuilder then Xcode was used to compile following versions of Xcode.

It's pretty simple and logical IMO.Edited 2008-06-02 18:25 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[2]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316704 http://osnews.com/thread?316704

Visual studio is not written in .NET. Where you'll find that XCode was written in Obj-C, using XCode. Microsoft are not dogfooding their own .NET APIs that they are advertising as the way forward for everybody else.

For the VAST number of line-of-business applications, .NET (or Java, if you don't mind a GUI circa 1995) is more than adequate; and, quite frankly, it's advisable, given the RAD development model. Not a lot of people actually write huge apps like Visual Studio or Word. Those that do should pick whatever tool is most appropriate. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[2]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316705 http://osnews.com/thread?316705

As I pointed out in a previous post, most developers don't write the kind of publicly-consumed applications that Microsoft produces (ie. Word, Excel, Visual Studio, IE, etc). They write line-of-business applications that pertain to their particular business use-cases. C/C++ isn't a good tool to use in those scenarios, but .NET/Java are excellent for that purpose. Hence, that's why Microsoft advocates .NET (and Sun advocates Java) for LOB apps. I've never heard Microsoft suggest that you should be using .NET to produce an app like Word. It's just common sense: Use whatever tool is most appropriate for the job. Apple is handing every developer a hammer, regardless of the problem, when they really only need a screw driver. The reason is simple: They want to tie you to their platform, no different than Microsoft or Sun or anybody else. At least with .NET and Java, you can run your code on other platforms.Edited 2008-06-02 18:36 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[2]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316706 http://osnews.com/thread?316706 Actually, most applications written for Windows are inhouse apps written in Visual Basic or C#. Most developers for Windows are working for a company writing apps in VB, VB.NET or C#. Therefore, most user apps are written using the .net framework (or the vb6 runtime, which predates the .net framework) Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments RE[3]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316707 http://osnews.com/thread?316707 Sorry, but Objective-C is crap, in my opinion. The syntax is too arcane, and the whole sender-receiver model is unnecessarily ambiguous. It makes C++ look incredibly elegant, by comparison.

That's your opinion and I respect it.

But would you care enought to argument you point of view ? You know arguments, facts.... because it seems that you dislike Objective-C simply because you don't understand it and find it ambiguous. This really gives you less credibility than you surely deserve. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[4]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316709 http://osnews.com/thread?316709 "The first release of the .Net framework was in 2002 - a mere 6 years ago. It wasn't usable for anything much until version 2, released in 2006. Realistically, developers could have started writing end-user apps in 2006"

The .NET framework was very usable out of the gate, I developed tonnes of stuff with it using Visual Studio 2002, I also used 1.5, which came out with 2003, and version 2, which came out in 2005, not 2006.

Just because you think something is not useful, doesn't mean that others don't. Clearly you aren't a software developer, at least not on Windows anyway. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments RE[4]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316710 http://osnews.com/thread?316710 I was about to point out the same thing. Regardless of the name changes and different UI, OSX at its core is still NextStep. Liek the author of the article pointed out some of the development tools used today in OSX come from NeXT. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (apoclypse) Comments RE[5]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316711 http://osnews.com/thread?316711 I can't agree more.

Besides my 2 macs, I have 2 NeXT stations

And countless PCs, old SUN stations.... Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316712 http://osnews.com/thread?316712

* Summary : "WinForms is bad. Java is much better designed."
That must be because basically not a single Java desktop program is installed on ANY of my PCs while I use many Winforms ones. Go figure.

A well designed API from a programmers point of view doesn't necessarily mean you will see it a lot as a user. The majority of client side code you will come into contact with as a Windows user is going to be written in Win32. No one will claim Win32 is well designed, not unless they've had 5 - 6 beers.

* Summary : "Apple loves developers so that's why they give developers tools out for free. Microsoft instead tries to monetize its developers... thus Microsoft don't understand that more developers means more software for your platform"
Yeah very! Could it be that Apple desperately needs more developers while Microsoft has loads of it writing new apps?

You've missed the point. Apple needs many 3rd party developers and they've done a lot to reduce the barrier to entry by making their development tools free. Microsoft too need as many 3rd party developers as they can get. Sadly, the tools are all commercial. Stuff like Shark, Instruments, the stuff in /Developer/Applications/Performance all come for free with Xcode, but you'd need high end VS to get it.

* Summary : "Great! Apple "innovated" (lol!) by introducing Core Audio, Core Video, Core Data so developers don't need to write their own modules! YaY!"
Do you mean Apple introduced what Windows provided like 13 years ago? YaY!

You accuse the author of being a fan boy, and yet you make asinine comments like this? You have clearly no idea what Core Audio and Core Video do.

System-wide palette for developers to use... rather innovative ;-D

Have you see the palettes he's talking about? When Apple introduces a new UI theme/widget, it's available to all developers from the get go. How long did it take C++ developers on Windows to get access to ribbons?

Though I agree with you that Quartz Composer is a waste of time though it does allow you to create some very amazing looking demos. Pity I have the artistic ability of a hippopotamus. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[4]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316713 http://osnews.com/thread?316713

But would you care enought to argument you point of view ? You know arguments, facts.... because it seems that you dislike Objective-C simply because you don't understand it and find it ambiguous. This really gives you less credibility than you surely deserve.

Oh, I understand it. I just don't like it. Here's are some examples of why I don't like Objective-C. It has a late-binding contract so, when you call a particular object method, there is no guarantee that the receiver will even process it. You don't know until RUNTIME. That's weak and error-prone. Contrast that with C++, which has very strict compile-time type-safety built into it. Additionally, I don't like the syntax for Objective-C. It looks like it was put together by someone who thought that things like consistency and readability are secondary considerations. The code just looks UGLY. Contrast that with C++, with namespaces, visibility modifiers, better inheritance semantics, and there's no competition. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[2]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316715 http://osnews.com/thread?316715

The majority of client side code you will come into contact with as a Windows user is going to be written in Win32.

No one will claim Win32 is well designed, not unless they've had 5 - 6 beers.

Neither would anyone say the same of Cocoa or any of Apple's APIs. It's all crap, when it comes right down to it.

Apple needs many 3rd party developers and they've done a lot to reduce the barrier to entry by making their development tools free. Microsoft too need as many 3rd party developers as they can get. Sadly, the tools are all commercial. Stuff like Shark, Instruments, the stuff in /Developer/Applications/Performance all come for free with Xcode, but you'd need high end VS to get it.

That's simply not true. Not all editions of Visual Studio are commercial. For example, Visual Studio Express (see http://www.microsoft.com/express/default.aspx) is freely available. Also, the Win32 SDK includes a compiler, debugger, headers/libs, and lots of tools. For free. In addition, there's a huge raft of open source tools such as Eclipse (http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/) which developers can use. Some people would even argue that the open source tools are BETTER. So, really, the idea that you HAVE to use a commercial edition of Visual Studio to develop apps for Windows is just ridiculous and wrong.

You accuse the author of being a fan boy, and yet you make asinine comments like this? You have clearly no idea what Core Audio and Core Video do.

DirectSound, DirectShow, DirectInput, Direct3D, etc have all been around for a VERY long time. That's his point -- and it's valid to mention. Apple isn't breaking new ground here. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[5]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316716 http://osnews.com/thread?316716 Expression Blend and Expression Design are two awesome apps written using WPF. They greatly influenced .Net 3.5. Silverlight and these apps are examples of Microsoft eating their own dog food and making changes based on what they learn.

Seriously though Microsoft has some awesome technology for developers not just around the GUI. WPF is as good as it gets and on the stuf that is not GUI related Apple has nothing comparable. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (andrewg) Comments RE[3]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316717 http://osnews.com/thread?316717

"I believe the point the author was trying to make is that, for one, Apple themselves are using, for majority of their apps, the framework they are promoting as preferred for OS X development, unlike Microsoft, who still develop most of their software in Win32 instead of .Net.

As I pointed out in a previous post, most developers don't write the kind of publicly-consumed applications that Microsoft produces (ie. Word, Excel, Visual Studio, IE, etc). They write line-of-business applications that pertain to their particular business use-cases. C/C++ isn't a good tool to use in those scenarios, but .NET/Java are excellent for that purpose. Hence, that's why Microsoft advocates .NET (and Sun advocates Java) for LOB apps. I've never heard Microsoft suggest that you should be using .NET to produce an app like Word. It's just common sense: Use whatever tool is most appropriate for the job. Apple is handing every developer a hammer, regardless of the problem, when they really only need a screw driver. The reason is simple: They want to tie you to their platform, no different than Microsoft or Sun or anybody else. At least with .NET and Java, you can run your code on other platforms. "

Perhaps on the Windows platform but I'm truly hardpressed to find Java/.NET applications [mono the exception for GNOME, in part] on Linux and OS X that are Client-Server based applications in the traditional client-server model.

How much of KDE is written in C/C++ and how much of it is written in Java/.NET?

How much of GNUstep is written in C/ObjC/ObjC++/C++ and how much is written in Java/.NET?

How much of OS X is written in Java/.NET versus C/ObjC/ObjC++/C++?

How much of LaTeX Tools are written in Java/.NET?

How much of Adobe's applications are written in Java/.NET?

Intuit? Corel? Oracle? Sybase? IBM? Sun?

What are Safari, Firefox, IE, OmniWeb, Konqueror, Opera, et. al are written in Java/.NET?

The article is honest. Microsoft wants more people to move to .NET but realizes cutting ties with C/C++ and demanding people switch to C# for general application development would produce an abandoning ship to Linux and OS X tenfold more than they already do. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tyrione) Comments RE[5]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316719 http://osnews.com/thread?316719 Oh, I understand it. I just don't like it. Here's are some examples of why I don't like Objective-C. It has a late-binding contract so, when you call a particular object method, there is no guarantee that the receiver will even process it. You don't know until RUNTIME. That's weak and error-prone. Contrast that with C++, which has very strict compile-time type-safety built into it. Additionally, I don't like the syntax for Objective-C. It looks like it was put together by someone who thought that things like consistency and readability are secondary considerations. The code just looks UGLY. Contrast that with C++, with namespaces, visibility modifiers, better inheritance semantics, and there's no competition.

- Thanks for your answer.

- Late binding is a feature in ObjC and while I agree with you it can be error-prone for the Objc beginner, it allows for better flexibility.

- In ObjC programs there is just no need for namespaces and all C++ related stuffs. Mutiple heritage is a non sense in Objc (and not needed) It's a bit like arguing that C++ lacks "protocols", "categories" or "properties" from ObjC. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[3]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316725 http://osnews.com/thread?316725 it may be valid to mention that Directx components have been available for years, but the scope and integration into the OS isn't the same. Besides that Apple also had system services for sound and video even as far back as system 7.5 so I really don't see his point. No one uses directsound for anything other than games or simple applications. Yes its there and has been for a while, but who really uses it? Even MS themselves don't fully use it and that is where Apple and MS differ. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (apoclypse) Comments RE[4]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316726 http://osnews.com/thread?316726 I think you kind of missed my point. Most app developers don't write the kinds of apps that would require C/C++. Your average corporate or small-business developer doesn't need the horsepower or complexity offered by C/C++; so, .NET and Java applications really work well in those environments. In my company, for example, our support devs write data collection apps in C#. Most of the data goes to payroll/accounting or HR. More and more of those apps are moving from client machines up to web servers. But web applications aren't always possible/useful to all users; for example, the sales folks who are on the road all the time need apps which do projections for them, keep track of expenses, and other stuff. They don't want to VPN into the corporate network to do all of those things, so client apps work for them. The devs who are writing these apps are using C# because C/C++ would be overkill for what they need. The apps are corporate, highly targeted at specific scenarios, and relatively simple. That, really, is what most devs do in the real world. They aren't writing Internet Explorer or KDE or whatever. For THOSE guys, yeah, sure, I'll grant you, C/C++ is the better tool. But those guys only represent a thimbleful of the larger market for developers. All that you have to do is crack open the classified ads and see what sorts of jobs people are looking for. It's a common theme: Java, .NET, databases, web development. You won't see many jobs for C/C++ developers, on average, compared to the others, and I think that is reflected in Microsoft's emphasis on managed code. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[4]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316727 http://osnews.com/thread?316727

it may be valid to mention that Directx components have been available for years, but the scope and integration into the OS isn't the same.

Uh, no. I disagree. Microsoft's technologies are layered in a way that makes it possible/probable to use them either directly or indirectly. For example, at the bottom of the stack is Direct3D/DirectSound/DXVA/etc. Above it are DirectShow for video playback. And, above that is Windows Media Player controls and APIs.

Besides that Apple also had system services for sound and video even as far back as system 7.5 so I really don't see his point.

None of this stuff is new. Both MS and Apple provide (and have provided) audio/video APIs. In other words, the level of innovation is only very incremental.

No one uses directsound for anything other than games or simple applications. Yes its there and has been for a while, but who really uses it? Even MS themselves don't fully use it and that is where Apple and MS differ.

Yes, they do use DirectSound. They just don't realize it. Whenever most apps call playSound(), it eventually calls down DirectSound. The fact that you aren't AWARE that you're calling DirectSound is irrelevant. You are. Why do you think that it's necessary to call into the lowest layer of the stack in order to call that INTEGRATED? That's a nonsensical definition for integration. Integration is all about targeting the layer of technology that makes the most sense. If I don't want to learn about DirectShow or Direct3D or whatever, I can simply host a Windows Media Player control, and have IT do the heavy lifting. Or, if my needs are more complex, I have the option of targeting the lower level runtimes directly. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[6]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316728 http://osnews.com/thread?316728

- Late binding is a feature in ObjC and while I agree with you it can be error-prone for the Objc beginner, it allows for better flexibility.

Flexibility = Instability.

- In ObjC programs there is just no need for namespaces and all C++ related stuffs.

Objective-C is a poor man's object-oriented language, circa 1990. It doesn't go far enough in implementing the kinds of useful features that C++ provides, and
I'm stunned that anybody would want to use it when they could be using C++. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[5]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316731 http://osnews.com/thread?316731 The problem here is that you are putting Objective-C/Cocoa into the same league in terms of programming complexity as C/C++, whereas in reality it is much more similar to Java/C#. 99% of the time you don't really have to deal with pointers (one can regard 'ClassName *var;' as syntax sugar, so that doesn't really qualify as pointer manipulation) and Objective-C's strong dynamic mechanisms work very well for GUI environments, which are by nature hard to describe flexibly using static typing. This is further emphasized in ObjC-2.0 which features an automatic GC.

As the author pointed out, no single feature of Objective-C or Cocoa really put them above other players. It's much more about the combination and implementation of these features. Also, one can transition programming styles from dynamic RAD with good code manageability all the way down to assembly-level programming without having to switch languages. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (saso) Comments RE[7]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316734 http://osnews.com/thread?316734

Flexibility = Instability.

It really comes to what you want to use the language for. Objective-C isn't a one-size-fits-all thing. This way you would have to disregard all dynamic languages (PHP, Smalltalk, Perl, Ruby, Self, Python, to just name a few) as ill approaches.

On the other side one could argue that C++ is so bloated that most programmers don't use even one third of the language's features in their work. Some languages are designed maximalistically (C++), some minimalistically (ObjC, Ruby, Self). It really comes down to taste. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (saso) Comments RE[5]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316735 http://osnews.com/thread?316735

I think you kind of missed my point. Most app developers don't write the kinds of apps that would require C/C++.

Yet MS has poured loads of development hours into .NET, designing Winforms and then abandoning it in favor of WPF. All this while, MFC has not dramatically changed since its inception about 15 years ago and WTL is not officially supported. I think the message from Redmond is pretty clear.

C++ developers, sod off. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[7]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316737 http://osnews.com/thread?316737 Flexibility = Instability

With such a statement I (we) have a much better understanding of how the logical part of your brain works...

And it reminds me of the famous slogans of the party in G. Orwell's book "1984". After "War is peace", "Freedom is slavery" and "Ignorance is strengh" we finaly have a forth slogan "Flexibility is instability". Thank you so so much !!!

Objective-C is a poor man's object-oriented language, circa 1990. It doesn't go far enough in implementing the kinds of useful features that C++ provides...

You do realize that in the above sentence one can freely interposes Objective-C and C++ and your sentence will reamain as "true" as in your original sentence. It's just a matter of preference (very subjective by essence) and your preferences are valuable for only one person on this planet.... you !!!

...and I'm stunned that anybody would want to use it when they could be using C++

Funny but I'm not stunned at all. I wonder why.... Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[3]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316738 http://osnews.com/thread?316738

With VS Express, you're shafted if you're a C++ developer and want to use a slightly modern framework instead of coding direct to the Win32 API. There is no MFC. Neither is there any ATL. As a result, you can't use WTL either. If you're after designing UIs, you're stuck with a resource editor that hasn't been updated since .rc files were introduced. If you're going to write COM components, tough luck, no GUID generator.

While Xcode doesn't compete with VS Team System, it's definitely better than VS Express, Standard or Professional. I mean, come on. What kind of self respecting developer doesn't profile his code? Or search for memory leaks? The lack of a profiler means no PGO either. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[2]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316739 http://osnews.com/thread?316739

People having been throwing around visual studio claims (one way or another) all over the place in this post. Here is a rough overview of the actual SKUs

VS express editions gives you all you need to do most things. They are limited in

C#/VB.net only
Web designer is kinda sucky
No class diagrams
No .net compact support (for pda/smartphones)
Can only connect to local databases
XML editor only supports XML
Can only debug locally
Can only compile 32bit
No SQL/Server or Windows Server WMI integration
No office addin support
No code profiling
No code analysis
No plugins
No database tools (like schema compares or refactoring)
No integrated testing
No issue/project management features
No database deployment features

out of all of that, 32bit only binaries are the only thing that really sucks. Other then that, it is a very good ide (for the price), and while the latest XCode may be better, it is in the same range. What you are missing are things you would only really miss in more serious projects then stuff for end users.

---------------

With studio standard, you get

All the .net languages
The full web designer
Plugin support
Mobile support
Ability to connect to remote databases and services
Database diagrams
64bit support

This is for the more serious hobbiest, or the economy version for independant professionals who do not have an MSDN subscription

---------------------------

With pro you get

Full remote abilities
XSLT support
SQL Server integration (ssis/dts projects)

Usually pro is another 100$ or so. you would only really get it if you need the heavy duty data transformation stuff in sql server.

----------------------

After that, we get into the team system stuff. They are designed for teams of developers working on large projects. You don't usually actually buy these, you buy MSDN subscriptions

These are divided into SKUs for
Software Developers
Software Architects
Software Testers
Database Professionals
Team Suite (i.e. Ultimate, either for the VP of technology or motivation to get that MVP award)

---------------------

The apple tools are designed for people doing desktop apps. Personally, I like WPF/C# better, but overall when it comes to smaller things, I think XCode is the better product. As soon as you start talking databases, web services, server side scripting, XCode is not even in the same class, and even the express versions of VS would be a better choice.

As for the criticism that MS doesn't include a profiler in the free SKU, IMO that is something that should be pushed down to Pro (like testing was). However, a profiler is not something that everyone needs, and in a team setting the guy who needs it will have it. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[6]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316740 http://osnews.com/thread?316740 I just finished listening to a podcast where a microsoft guy was complaining that too few people at microsoft had any knowledge of unmanaged code. Outside of the windows/office teams, its all about .net. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[8]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316741 http://osnews.com/thread?316741

Thank you so so much !!!

You're welcome. You plainly see an archaic defect in Objective-C as some kind of benefit, so whatever. More power to you. Enjoy it, if it works for you.

It's just a matter of preference (very subjective by essence) and your preferences are valuable for only one person on this planet.... you !!!

LMAO! Rrrrrright. I'm quite confident that, if you were to actually check around, you'd find that the people that prefer Objective-C to C++ is a very small number, indeed. The problem (I think) is that you've been using Objective-C so long that you've lost the [objective] capacity to know that it's crap.Edited 2008-06-02 23:56 UTC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[6]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316742 http://osnews.com/thread?316742

"I think you kind of missed my point. Most app developers don't write the kinds of apps that would require C/C++.

Those components are part of the free Windows Platform SDK. Since many people get both VS Express and Windows Platform SDK, there's no sense in downloading the same components twice. So, download the Platform SDK. Game over. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316745 http://osnews.com/thread?316745 Let me just say that if you had any knowlege about Objective-C, then you'd not have to "believe" [sic] anything about its features, and could actually make some substantial statement.

Objective-C code is compiled to machine code and not "managed" in the sense the word is usually used.

Objective-C manages memory either manually or by reference counting (whether that counts as "garbage-collected" is not universally accepted, but most would say it doesn't). Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Morin) Comments RE[6]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316746 http://osnews.com/thread?316746 If you knew anything about obj-c, you would know with 2.0 there is real, full gc.

Like I have said in other places, I was mistaking a managed memory runtime with a managed language. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[3]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316748 http://osnews.com/thread?316748 The only reason Xcode may lack on the Database stuff is for some stupid reason Apple has pulled Enterprise Object Frameworks from the mix.

Put that back in and suddenly they leap-frog VS on this matter. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tyrione) Comments RE[4]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316750 http://osnews.com/thread?316750 I dunno, studio has very good db tooling. And what about creating/consuming web services? I can't imagine working on a large system without services. WCF/Studio makes this ridicules easy Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[9]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316752 http://osnews.com/thread?316752 Enjoy it, if it works for you.

It works for me, for Apple devs and thousands of 3rd party devs... Now you learnt ObjC (a mandatory step to understand it), you wrote several real life programs with it (another mandatory step to understand it) and still it doesn't work for you... There's something weird....

LMAO

You're at the first step of a 3 steps process:
âIf you want to make someone angry tell him a lie; if you want to make him furious, tell him the truth. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed* , second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident.â - Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

*:Where you are.

I'm quite confident that, if you were to actually check around, you'd find that the people that prefer Objective-C to C++ is a very small number, indeed

Using exactly the same kind of intellectual (biaised, non-argumented, dishonnest) stunt, one can say that the "Elite" is always composed by a very small number, indeed !

The problem (I think) is that you've been using Objective-C so long that you've lost the [objective] capacity to know that it's crap.

I've been using ObjC for about 5 years and C++ for about 7 years.
While I can easily count your subjective, non-argumented statements against ObjC, you can't give a single example of my subjective, non-argumented statements against C++ since I use and like C++ too. Still, according to you, "I" lost objective capacity to know... Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[3]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316753 http://osnews.com/thread?316753

"The majority of client side code you will come into contact with as a Windows user is going to be written in Win32.

It depends on what you do with your client computer. For many people, who only use a web browser to read email and play games, that's probably true. But there's a huge number of people running in corporate environments that run nothing but managed (C#, Java) LOB applications. Most (if not all) of the applications in these sorts of environments are managed.

No one will claim Win32 is well designed, not unless they've had 5 - 6 beers.

Neither would anyone say the same of Cocoa or any of Apple's APIs. It's all crap, when it comes right down to it.

Apple needs many 3rd party developers and they've done a lot to reduce the barrier to entry by making their development tools free. Microsoft too need as many 3rd party developers as they can get. Sadly, the tools are all commercial. Stuff like Shark, Instruments, the stuff in /Developer/Applications/Performance all come for free with Xcode, but you'd need high end VS to get it.

That's simply not true. Not all editions of Visual Studio are commercial. For example, Visual Studio Express (see http://www.microsoft.com/express/default.aspx) is freely available. Also, the Win32 SDK includes a compiler, debugger, headers/libs, and lots of tools. For free. In addition, there's a huge raft of open source tools such as Eclipse (http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/) which developers can use. Some people would even argue that the open source tools are BETTER. So, really, the idea that you HAVE to use a commercial edition of Visual Studio to develop apps for Windows is just ridiculous and wrong.

You accuse the author of being a fan boy, and yet you make asinine comments like this? You have clearly no idea what Core Audio and Core Video do.

DirectSound, DirectShow, DirectInput, Direct3D, etc have all been around for a VERY long time. That's his point -- and it's valid to mention. Apple isn't breaking new ground here. "

What a load dung. The entire industry has been copying what we did at NeXT for the past 15 years. Now that they've caught up suddenly Cocoa is crap? Truly classic.

All the Direct this or Direct that have rich, mature and modern Cocoa APIs on OS X. What Apple did, before Steve's return, was to let their lead in Graphics and Audio languish and go into the ground outside of QuickTime.

Let's revisit this thread in 3 years and see where the toolkits currently stand.

With Carbon gone you'll see far more resources extending Cocoa as it should have been a 5 years ago. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tyrione) Comments RE[4]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316755 http://osnews.com/thread?316755

What a load dung. The entire industry has been copying what we did at NeXT for the past 15 years. Now that they've caught up suddenly Cocoa is crap? Truly classic.

Maybe you missed my point: I wasn't singling Apple out. I think that BOTH Windows AND Apple graphics APIs are the suck. Microsoft hasn't really provided a way to bridge GDI and Direct3D in any meaningful way. And Apple's graphics perf with Quartz hardware support is so laughably bad that they won't turn it on, by default. As for Cocoa/Carbon, who cares? They're just lame frameworks, like MFC/Win32. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[2]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316759 http://osnews.com/thread?316759

"While I liked the article, I found it funny that the author portrayed Microsoft as a company that does not use its own APIs.

I developed Mac programs for years, and in my opinion, Apple treats its 3rd party developers like garbage. They bundle anything and everything so there's almost no room to compete with them (people complain about the few apps that Microsoft bundles but seem to not mind the massive bundling Apple does). The changes they make to their API are more likely to break apps than Microsoft's API changes, and it's not even close. They killed off CodeWarrior by not providing them with the information necessary to create universal binaries. For years, CodeWarrior was the preferred development tool over Apple's offerings, even though it wasn't free like Apple's were. That should tell you something.

Well, the Office team invented Ribbons, not the Windows team. The Office team is independent. They "rolled" their own UI, and anyone else could've done the same without waiting on Microsoft. I find your complaint that Microsoft didn't immediately make the Ribbon UI available to others ironic, because if Microsoft had been split into an "Apps" company and an "OS" company, then this is exactly the behavior you'd get. Any UI that the "Apps" company invented would not be provided by the "OS" company since they would be separate companies. Isn't this what lots of Microsoft bashers wanted?

At any rate, Microsoft pretty quickly did provide a free license to the UI that apps devs and component devs can use, and there are already multiple component devs providing Ribbon UI to devs, and Microsoft's own new .NET and MFC libs provide these Ribbon UI tools written by 3rd-party component devs. (Note that the actuall Office code is NOT provided by Microsoft, since the Office team is independent and writes their code in a way that is suitable for their own internal use, but not in a way that is suitable for use in a library usable by 3rd parties). And these 3rd-party Ribbon UI components were available even before Office 2007 RTM'ed. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MollyC) Comments calm down http://osnews.com/thread?316764 http://osnews.com/thread?316764 Cocoa is targeted for the desktop development.

WPF is for desktop, mobile web, and the web itself (silverlight 2 and 3 will support limited WPF controls).

You guys are taking this article TOO seriously. It comes down to what you're building and who you're targeting. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (djames) Comments RE[3]: Good article http://osnews.com/thread?316774 http://osnews.com/thread?316774 The same way that GCC compiles GCC and Visual Studio is developed using Visual Studio. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[5]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316775 http://osnews.com/thread?316775

Those components are part of the free Windows Platform SDK.

No, they are not. I have looked, and you *are* shafted if you wish to develop COM, ATL, WTL or MFC applications with VS Express. It was possible to use WTL/ATL in VS 2005 express. Realizing this mistake, MS has removed all ATL headers from the Platform SDK. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[3]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316776 http://osnews.com/thread?316776 Good and informative post. Shame I can't mod you up

Edited 2008-06-03 06:33 UTC Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[3]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316780 http://osnews.com/thread?316780

They killed off CodeWarrior by not providing them with the information necessary to create universal binaries. For years, CodeWarrior was the preferred development tool over Apple's offerings, even though it wasn't free like Apple's were. That should tell you something.

Oh man, you got no clue. I had to join just to debunk you.

I've been developing software for 30 years. Yeah, CodeWarrior rocked - I used it for years. Before that I used Symantec C for the Mac. Before that.... However, people used it because it was way better than the expensive MPW Shell - back in the days when Steve was NOT there and Apple did not give it's tools away free.... So to say it cost more and people still used it is disingenuous. It cost LESS and was the 1st tool available for building PPC apps, and was pretty good at it. They killed off Symantec on the mac as well (wait, Symantec killed off Symantec tools all on its own...)

Metrowerks was bought by Motorola, so as they could have dev tools like Intel has theirs, to make money and make tools for their chips. Motorola switched focus to embedded systems, and abandoned their X86 products (yes, they made a compiler for x86 BEFORE Motorola bought them. You could even cross debug Mac>PC or PC>Mac).

Motorola had an interest in supporting THEIR CPUs, the PowerPC and embedded chips. It was Metrowerks, under the ownership of Motorola, that had no interest in creating Universal Binaries. Motorola and Metrowerks were gone from X86 LONG before the transition, and had no interest in supporting mac OS X strongly.

Timeline - Motorola acquires Metrowerks in 1999..
2000 - Motorola ceases developing the compiler for x86
2001 - Motorola persists in supporting legacy tools with no new developments now in a couple of years.
June 2005 - Apple announces transition to Intel
July 2005 - unwilling to resurrect the X86 compiler killed as soon as Motorola bought Metrowerks, Metrowerks abandons the tools they had not really advanced in 5+ years on the Mac.

Get your facts straight Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ebernet) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316785 http://osnews.com/thread?316785

Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.

The software used to flash the N800 and N810 in Windows is written in DotNet and *requires* the DotNet 2 framework. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[2]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316787 http://osnews.com/thread?316787

The reason you can't is because the only way to really tell a .net app at this point (from a user point of view) is the unhandled exception dialog.

Dragging the exe on to Reflector is more technical, but yields faster results.

Microsoft Management Studio for Sql Server is at least in part written in DotNet. The shell app seems not to be (or MS hacked it to look like it isn't), but the tonne of assemblies it uses say different. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[5]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316788 http://osnews.com/thread?316788 100% of Mac users eh? I am sure Adobe would disagree with you. And Finder itself is largely a 32-bit Carbon app:

http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zetsurin) Comments RE[4]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316796 http://osnews.com/thread?316796

Timeline -
Motorola acquires Metrowerks in 1999..

2000 - Motorola ceases developing the compiler for x86

2001 - Motorola persists in supporting legacy tools with no new developments now in a couple of years.

June 2005 - Apple announces transition to Intel July

2005 - unwilling to resurrect the X86 compiler killed as soon as Motorola bought Metrowerks, Metrowerks abandons the tools they had not really advanced in 5+ years on the Mac. Get your facts straight

IIRC it was even worse than that... Metroworks x86 compilers were sold off to a third party. They didn't own them at the time of transition. Not to worry, they were pretty crappy and only did PE executables. They used GCC for anything else x86 (including their folly into LINUX.)

AFAIR, their Mac PowerPC compiler only ever targeted the CFM too, so Universal Binaries were always going to be a little more tricky.

EDIT: by CFM, we of course mean PEF format (as in, BeOS people don't need to try to contradict me on that one), as opposed to the native mach-o MacOS X exe format inherited from OPENSTEP/NEXTSTEP. The Next platform always did "fat" binaries in the exact same way Mac OS X does them now (well, I didn't look at the layout, but I assume any changes are streamlining)... An OPENSTEP .App can be 68000, x86, SPARC and whatever the HP chip was, all at the same time. Much like Universal Binaries now. The Mac "fat" binaries don't even come close IMO to the elegance of the approach used by Mac OS X.Edited 2008-06-03 11:14 UTC Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[7]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316799 http://osnews.com/thread?316799

If you knew anything about obj-c, you would know with 2.0 there is real, full gc. Like I have said in other places, I was mistaking a managed memory runtime with a managed language.

Objective C 2.0 is pretty much restricted to Leopard and up to date Tiger installs. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[5]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316800 http://osnews.com/thread?316800

I dunno, studio has very good db tooling. And what about creating/consuming web services? I can't imagine working on a large system without services. WCF/Studio makes this ridicules easy

Visual Studio has crappy database tooling. It's a bit like the source control integration. Great if you want basic stuff, power users - it just gets in the way. I am constantly in Microsoft Management Studio to get any real work done. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[3]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316801 http://osnews.com/thread?316801 yeah, i was talking from an end user point of view. the rendering engines of both avid and sony vegas also use .net, but im pretty sure the main apps dont Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316802 http://osnews.com/thread?316802

Welcome to 2006. Winforms has been deprecated for a very long time now.

WPF is only available in Visual Studio 2008. The 2005 plug-in was never release for production use.

If I had time to hand code forms I would be writing in C++, not using a RAD environment.

Winforms is here and will be here for a long time yet. WPF is pretty much unused. I know of no one using it in production.

As with all discussions of this nature, use the right tool for the job. C/C++ is the correct tool for most platforms without a strong framework (LINUX for example.) Java is the correct platform for weenies and losers. Win32 is the only API if you want nice lean apps wich are pretty much unmaintainable, MFC and ATL are slight movements in a positive direction, but still way off the mark. Winforms is pretty much the only choice for DotNet (especially if you want to be cross platform) and Objective C is for the Mac. All other discussions are window dressing ;-) YMMV

Edit: messed up spelling.Edited 2008-06-03 11:31 UTC Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[2]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316805 http://osnews.com/thread?316805 Yeah, I sorta disagree.

Your right that the 2k5 designer wasn't ever RTM'd, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to learn. WPF not only addresses the (valid) points in the article about the inflexibility of winforms, but it flips it around and makes the mac environment look inflexible by comparison.

You are right that WPF adoption has been extremely limited, but for the purposes of this conversation winforms is being used as a straw man.

As for hand coding, you don't need to hand code, but for the best experience you want to be in split screen (which is what the designer gives you by default), and be switching back and forth between the designer and the code. XAML is a high level declarative markup language, and it is really not hard to learn at all if you have any web experience. The benefits are definately there, and (IMO) make it the best tool for the job for any ui that goes beyond typical LOB stuff.

Just so we are on the same page, check this out http://www.beacosta.com/blog/?p=40 . I like to pull that out in any discussion on why WPF is worth learning, just because so many people really don't understand how wide the gulf is between it and winforms.

As with all discussions of this nature, use the right tool for the job. C/C++ is the correct tool for most platforms without a strong framework (LINUX for example.) Java is the correct platform for weenies and losers. Win32 is the only API if you want nice lean apps wich are pretty much unmaintainable, MFC and ATL are slight movements in a positive direction, but still way off the mark. Winforms is pretty much the only choice for DotNet (especially if you want to be cross platform) and Objective C is for the Mac. All other discussions are window dressing ;-) YMMV

Agreed on pretty much all respects except for the winforms one ;-) But I have the perspective of a web guy who does occasional smart clients, and the soul of an early adopter, so I guess i fall into the YMMV disclaimerEdited 2008-06-03 12:29 UTC Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[3]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316825 http://osnews.com/thread?316825 GNUstep Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUstep_Renaissance), which also runs natively on OSX, has been around for quite a while now too. The only downside is that it never gained enough traction in the community to force us to write a GUI designer for it. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (saso) Comments RE[6]: Comment by GStepper http://osnews.com/thread?316827 http://osnews.com/thread?316827

100% of Mac users eh? I am sure Adobe would disagree with you. And Finder itself is largely a 32-bit Carbon app:

http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon

Adobe ? By default, you have no Adobe app pre-installed on a mac.
->Adobe : irrelevant.

Finder: Largely ??? hum you mean not entirely, right ?
Funny you don't go further in your explanation...

Yes 100% of OS X users use ObjC/Cocoa applications each and every time they use their computer... (Preview,iLife, iWork suite all use extensivily Cocoa through ObjC, let alone AdressBook, Safari, mail, iCal, Xcode, Interface Builder...) Whether or not Cocoa apps are "mapped" to Carbon features at some time in their execution doesn't change anything at all ! Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mnemonics) Comments RE[10]: Why was the Java bridge deprecated? http://osnews.com/thread?316859 http://osnews.com/thread?316859

It works for me, for Apple devs and thousands of 3rd party devs...

Again, if it works for you, great. Whatever. I could care less. If you want a preprocessor masquerading as an object-oriented langugage, fine. Use Objective-C. If you want a real object-oriented language, step up to C++.

Using exactly the same kind of intellectual (biaised, non-argumented, dishonnest) stunt, one can say that the "Elite" is always composed by a very small number, indeed !

Perhaps it's slipped your mind that YOU were the one who introduced the exclusionary argument earlier in this thread:

"... your preferences are valuable for only one person on this planet.... you !!!"

Funny but I'm not stunned at all. I wonder why....

Because you don't know any better. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[6]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316860 http://osnews.com/thread?316860

Wrong. The source code for ATL et al is downloadable. You just go and get it.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=a55b6b43-e... Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat) Comments RE[5]: This guy simply has no clue http://osnews.com/thread?316863 http://osnews.com/thread?316863 Thanks, well put. I forgot about the whole CFM thing....
bottom line is, it was Metrowerks (Motorola, Freescale, what have you) that did not care. They did not bring it forward because they had to actually DO something, which they had not done in 5+ years at that point. I say good riddance to them (it was such a shame - circa 1996, using CW with PowerPlant was the tits. I loved the environment and the Object Oriented framework. They rocked). Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ebernet) Comments RE: calm down http://osnews.com/thread?316879 http://osnews.com/thread?316879

Cocoa is targeted for the desktop development.

WPF is for desktop, mobile web, and the web itself (silverlight 2 and 3 will support limited WPF controls).

You guys are taking this article TOO seriously. It comes down to what you're building and who you're targeting.

Cocoa Touch is targeted for Mobile. Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tyrione) Comments RE[3]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316882 http://osnews.com/thread?316882 1) GC in ObjC is optional, and many (most?) apps don't use it.
2) GC and "managed code" (whatever that means -- usually it seems to mean a VM) are entirely separate considerations. You often have GC without a VM, and it's quite possible to have a VM that doesn't do GC. (I believe that this is the case with LLVM, although it gives hooks to implement your own GC) Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SomeGuy) Comments RE[5]: WPF http://osnews.com/thread?316883 http://osnews.com/thread?316883 quite easily. you look at the memory, see if it's being referred to. if it's not, free it. Do this periodically, and you have a garbage collector.

Sure, that's oversimplified, but it captures the essence. Hell, you can get garbage collection in pure C code (google Boehm GC) and some applications even use it. (see: GCC, Inkscape, and the GNU native-compiled Java) Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SomeGuy) Comments Cocoa is a framework for GUIs http://osnews.com/thread?317053 http://osnews.com/thread?317053 I've had extensive experience developing with Cocoa, along with Java Swing, Win 32 API, and GTK. Here are some points I'd like to make:

1) GUI application writing should not require fast APIs.

Yes, Obj-C is not nearly as fast as, say, C++. However, Sending messages dynamically during runtime makes writing applications very flexible. The speed benefits of C++ are not critical to writing code that handles menus. It is Obj-C's message passing system that gives Cocoa its incredible flexibility and rapid development.

2) Message passing determined at runtime is a good thing.

The author correctly points out that Obj-C makes it easy to extensively modify the behavior of provided widgets. The author points out how Windows' APIs don't allow much changed behavior, which severely hampers its abilities.

I once had to write in Swing some code that uses JTables. It took me several hundreds of lines of code and many hours sifting through documentation to get pretty basic behavior. This sort of thing is much easier to do in Cocoa and in much less code.

3) Speed critical areas in an application can easily switch over to high-performance languages like C.

Obj-C easily allows mixing of languages. In fact, you can even have C++ code mixed in with Obj-C. So, if there's something slow in the program, it can be replaced by C or C++. The best platforms are those that can be integrated with foreign platforms.

4) Xcode isn't great, but Makefiles can be used instead.

I love using vim and screen for development. I abhor even good IDEs like Visual Studio and Eclipse. I loathe Xcode over all the other main IDEs. I feel I am very productive with vim and screen even though they require a much higher learning curve than GUI IDEs. While Apple does not make it easy to develop Makefiles that compile a MacOS X application, it can be done. Traditional Unix users should be happy they can use typical tools yet produce beautiful OS X applications. Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (samad) Comments