Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC, submitted by Adam S
Thread beginning with comment 310898
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Carbon has always been billed as a transitional API. It was obvious right from the start that it wasn't always going to be available.
It was never going to work. Transitional APIs never do, because they never are transitional. Once you put it out there people start using it.
Guess it didn't work too well, given how many commercial apps remained Carbon. It was only the announcement that there will be no 64 bit Carbon that has spurred these software houses like Adobe to start seriously looking at Cocoa.
Shock, horror. There is zero return on investment to Adobe or anyone else in rewriting their applications from Carbon to Cocoa!






Member since:
2005-07-07
But that is a whole other issue in itself...I'm against apps that integrate that much into the environment.
Carbon has always been billed as a transitional API. It was obvious right from the start that it wasn't always going to be available. It's purpose was to help developers port their existing applications to OS X, before transitioning to Cocoa.
Guess it didn't work too well, given how many commercial apps remained Carbon. It was only the announcement that there will be no 64 bit Carbon that has spurred these software houses like Adobe to start seriously looking at Cocoa.