Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 09:36 UTC
Ars has just published part three in their series "From Win32 to Cocoa", in which Peter Bright explains why he thinks "Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it." Part one dealt with the history of both development platforms, part two dived into .Net, different types of programmers, and Windows Vista, and part three details the development platform and tools Apple has to offer, and in what ways they are superior or inferior to Windows'.
Thread beginning with comment 316796
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.
RE[5]: This guy simply has no clue
by ebernet on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 18:52
in reply to "RE[4]: This guy simply has no clue"
Member since:2008-06-03
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).
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-01
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