🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<pteesonNOT-9C8AE9.14565115082002@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Peter Teeson <pteesonNOT@rogers.com> wrote:

> I seek advice in connection with my starting a new app that is going to 
> be an OS X only one.

Use the right tool for the right job... that may be any of PP, Carbon, 
Cocoa, etc.  You need to research which solves your problem best.

I'm not going to discuss this further because it always degrades into a 
war. :(

> It is said that Cocoa is dead - i.e. not being developed further.

Not true.  Nor for Carbon either.

> The May 91 dog book

What's that?

In article
<pteesonNOT-9C8AE9.14565115082002@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Peter Teeson <pteesonNOT@rogers.com> wrote:

> It is said that Cocoa is dead - i.e. not being developed further.

This is absolutely false.  Apple is making very heavy investments in
Cocoa as the future for Mac OS X.

> The May 91 dog book states that you cannot acces the Cocoa API from C++. 
> Is this still true?

This is still true.  The Cocoa frameworks get their power from the
dynamic nature of the Objective-C language.  If you want to use Cocoa
effectively, you have to learn Objective-C.  You can also use it from
Java, but you'll wind up having to learn quite a bit about Objective-C
to understand how it all fits together.

Fortunately, Objective-C is a very small language with only a few key
concepts that you need to learn.  The bigger difficulty will be
unlearning C++-isms when trying to do Cocoa development.

Also, learning Cocoa's approach will also make you a better PowerPlant
programmer.

(Oh, and I think you mean "Learning Cocoa".  "The May 91 dog book" is
kind of confusing, considering that it came out in 2001.)

> It is said that the way to the future is Carbon - which I understand as 
> basically the familiar MacOS API at a Foundation level (to use a Cocoa 
> term).

It's also a misleading term.  Carbon is a revised version of the old
Mac Toolbox.  Apple is also making very heavy investments in Carbon as
a future API for Mac OS X, though the evidence is that they're doing
lots of their work internally in Cocoa whenever they can.

There's also something called Core Foundation, a set of C APIs for
things like string, array, dictionary, etc. handling that underlies
Cocoa, Carbon, and other APIs on Mac OS X.  Don't mix the terminology.

> And of course PowerPlant is Carbonised now isn't it?
> 
> The missing part of the puzzle is a RAD for GUI development.
> But it is said that you can use InterfaceBuilder with CodeWarrior.

A Carbon version of PowerPlant was available starting with CodeWarrior
Pro 6.  The current revision is CodeWarrior Pro 8.  Metrowerks
PowerPlant Constructor is a decent tool for building your human
interface.  You can also build nib-based Carbon applications using
CodeWarrior and Interface Builder, but I don't know if PowerPlant has
any built-in support for using nib files instead of PPobs yet because I
haven't upgraded to CodeWarrior Pro 8.

> However the May 91 dog book talks about IB standard palettes only using 
> the Cocoa Application framework. Although it mentions using third party 
> palettes.

That's because the book you're talking about is entirely about Cocoa. 
That's why it's actually called "Learning Cocoa".

> I am thinking of going the PowerPlant/Carbon with C++ route and using 
> InterfaceBuilder for the GUI.
> 
> Is this the best choice?

Personally, I don't think so.

> What do most of you do for an OS X only app and why?

I use Cocoa.  I don't dislike PowerPlant; I think it's a decent
framework, and it's great for building software that runs on both Mac
OS 9 and Mac OS X.  But I'm so, so, so much more productive with Cocoa
and Objective-C than I am with PowerPlant (one of the best C++
frameworks around) and C++ that it's not even funny.

My measure of productivity is "features completed in unit time."

  -- Chris

-- 
Chris Hanson                      |  Email: cmh@bDistributed.com
bDistributed.com, Inc.            |  Phone: +1-847-372-3955
Making Business Distributed       |  Fax:   +1-847-589-3738
http://bdistributed.com/          |  Personal Email: cmh@mac.com

Peter Teeson <pteesonNOT@rogers.com> writes:

>I seek advice in connection with my starting a new app that is going to 
>be an OS X only one.

Apple says:  for new developments, use Cocoa.  I second that advice.

>It is said that Cocoa is dead -

Who says?  This is patently false.

>i.e. not being developed further.

Completely untrue.

>The May 91 dog book states that you cannot acces the Cocoa API from C++. 
>Is this still true?

No.  It wasn't really true, ever, but it is still true that you can't
really take advantage of Cocoa *from* C++.  However, you can access
model-code written in C++ from Cocoa/Objective-C without problems.

>It is said that the way to the future is Carbon -

False again, who says? 

>which I understand as 
>basically the familiar MacOS API at a Foundation level (to use a Cocoa 
>term).

You're not using the term correctly...

Marcel

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:30:47 -0400, Sean McBride <cwatson@cam.org>
wrote:

>In article 
><pteesonNOT-9C8AE9.14565115082002@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> Peter Teeson <pteesonNOT@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> I seek advice in connection with my starting a new app that is going to 
>> be an OS X only one.
>
>Use the right tool for the right job... that may be any of PP, Carbon, 
>Cocoa, etc.  You need to research which solves your problem best.

And perhaps, if you have enough resources, abstract yourself from most
of the API. Study the one you'll most likely use, create a C/C++/ObjC
wrapper framework and program your app code in your own framework.
This allows you to transfer your code to a different system more
easily. Esp. if you ever want to go crossplatform (even though it
probably means not taking 100% advantage of the features).


Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

> It is said that Cocoa is dead - i.e. not being developed further.

That's certainly not true.

> It is said that the way to the future is Carbon - which I understand as 
> basically the familiar MacOS API at a Foundation level (to use a Cocoa 
> term).

Yes. Jaguar adds a whole lot of cool Carbon features. (It's not
strictly the familiar API, in that new stuff is being added...)

And yes, you can use Interface Builder just fine with Carbon apps.

-- 
David Dunham    A Sharp    david@SPAM_B_GONE.a-sharp.com
http://www.pensee.com/dunham/
    "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
    "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams