Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Jun 2008 19:04 UTC
Mac OS X Mac OS X 10.5, Leopard, may only be six months old, but rumours are already abound as to the next update to Apple's operating system. According to several sources, it's going to be called Snow Leopard, it won't contain any major new features, and is planned to go gold master December 2008, available a month later. The big rumour: it's going to be available for 64bit Intel machines only.
Thread beginning with comment 317067
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Carbon?
by snozzberry on Wed 4th Jun 2008 23:25 UTC in reply to "Carbon?"
snozzberry
Member since:
2005-11-14

Okay, I'm kinda new with the Mac platform, so what's the deal with Carbon? Does it mean that I'll have to cope with Obj-C crap or some interpreted language?

OBJ-C isn't an interpreted language. It's the language Cocoa-based applications are written in. The Carbon API can be written to in C++ and other popular languages.

I'm pretty sure Vista would be an even better OS if it didn't had to cope with 20 years of backward compatibility.

This is Raymond Chen's legacy at Microsoft. Business customers are to be kept happy no matter what and their 3rd party vendors are never to be blamed for writing shitty code.

Vista is reaping what this policy sowed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Carbon?
by Wrawrat on Thu 5th Jun 2008 02:13 in reply to "RE: Carbon?"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

OBJ-C isn't an interpreted language. It's the language Cocoa-based applications are written in. The Carbon API can be written to in C++ and other popular languages.


Yeah, I know that Obj-C isn't interpreted. However, I read somewhere that Cocoa API can be accessed by interpreted languages like Perl, Ruby and Python. Didn't read anything on compiled languages other than Obj-C, though.

Not sure it would be wise to ditch Carbon if you cannot use Cocoa with C++... Perhaps it's getting loathed by software engineers, but at least it's not taking heaps of CPU cycles/RAM or practically restricted to a sole platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Carbon?
by ohbrilliance on Thu 5th Jun 2008 03:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Carbon?"
ohbrilliance Member since:
2005-07-07

However, I read somewhere that Cocoa API can be accessed by interpreted languages like Perl, Ruby and Python.


And how is this a bad thing? More power to the developer.

Not sure it would be wise to ditch Carbon if you cannot use Cocoa with C++... Perhaps it's getting loathed by software engineers, but at least it's not taking heaps of CPU cycles/RAM or practically restricted to a sole platform.


C++ does NOT make Carbon apps cross-platform!
The libraries and API are what determine portability, and AFAIK Cocoa and Carbon are both on equal footing in this respect (both being non-portable).

Can't comment on the performance between the two.

Somebody correct me if I'm talking out my ass.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Carbon?
by bousozoku on Thu 5th Jun 2008 04:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Carbon?"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

"OBJ-C isn't an interpreted language. It's the language Cocoa-based applications are written in. The Carbon API can be written to in C++ and other popular languages.


Yeah, I know that Obj-C isn't interpreted. However, I read somewhere that Cocoa API can be accessed by interpreted languages like Perl, Ruby and Python. Didn't read anything on compiled languages other than Obj-C, though.

Not sure it would be wise to ditch Carbon if you cannot use Cocoa with C++... Perhaps it's getting loathed by software engineers, but at least it's not taking heaps of CPU cycles/RAM or practically restricted to a sole platform.
"

There are bridge interfaces between Ruby, etc. to Cocoa. You can use Cocoa through an Apple hack called Objective-C++, where you can combine C, C++, and Objective-C in a single source file. It's a bit tricky moving data back and forth, so good planning is helpful but it can be done.

Carbon is a decent set of APIs but since they're not object-oriented, you end up writing all the behaviours yourself. Since Adobe and others have source code from the 1980s and 1990s, they can use a lot of it untouched with Carbon.

There does seem to be a performance degradation using Objective-C but since the compilers (how do I put it diplomatically?) don't output commercial quality code, the differences between Objective-C and C++ are minimal from my experience. (Didn't we use to care so much about compiler output code quality that we would buy a new compiler to get speed?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Carbon?
by Chicken Blood on Thu 5th Jun 2008 04:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Carbon?"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21


Not sure it would be wise to ditch Carbon if you cannot use Cocoa with C++... Perhaps it's getting loathed by software engineers, but at least it's not taking heaps of CPU cycles/RAM or practically restricted to a sole platform.


You can use Cocoa with C++.

Reply Parent Score: 2