Does anyone know if the Cocoa/Carbon developer tools will be included in the Beta release? I'm just thinking it would be great if the OS came standard with developer tools. Isn't that one of the things that defines a true workstation?

I think apple would include it. I mean the tools are free why not ship it and add that as an extra add on for an install. Correct me if I am wrong, but i think i am right, the GUI compilers are just front ends to the command line compilers.

Also you could download the darwin compilers and compile apps from the command line. To top it off I think apple includes their classic compiler as a free download on the developer site.

------------------
The goal of Project Freedom is to point users to solutions which brings the classic feel of the Mac OS to Mac OS X. (Mac OS X) Project Freedom

[Dalgo]

Yes, Macintosh Programmers Workshop, their classic programming environment, is availabe as a free download from Apple's developer site. You don't need to be a registered developer to get it either. Look at http://developer.apple.com/tools/mpw-tools/ for links to download it.

[This message has been edited by Dalgo (edited 08-04-2000).]

Project Builder is an IDE for free compilers and debuggers, that's true. But Interface Builder is Apple's own work (inherited from NeXT), and I don't think the specs of the nib file format have been released...so there's nothing else that can build Cocoa interfaces at this point. Interface Builder is an important part of Cocoa programming, and is one of the things that makes it so easy and flexible.

You could create Classic and Carbon applications in another environment and compile them using current free tools, but Interface Builder is pretty tightly integrated with Cocoa.

I don't think things like Project Builder and Interface Builder would come included on the final Mac OS X CD, but they might be free downloads from Apple's site like MPW. It would sure be nice...

I would highly doubt apple will see its programing tools. They would never make a dime off of it. Real developers would choose code warrior. This means apple will stick people who want to try and learn programing on OS X with their env.Charging a fee, apple would be shoot it self in the the knee.

------------------
The goal of Project Freedom is to point users to solutions which brings the classic feel of the Mac OS to Mac OS X. (Mac OS X) Project Freedom

"Real developers would choose Code Warrior"?!?

I guess the folks at id Software aren't real developers because they developed the Quake map editors in Cocoa (then OPENSTEP). I guess the people at Omni aren't real developers because two of them alone wrote their kick-butt web browser in Cocoa (not to mention porting Quake 2 and Quake 3). I guess the programmers at Apple aren't real developers because the majority of the applications included in Mac OS X were written in Cocoa using the very tools they supply. I guess every single WebObjects developer isn't a "real developer" (after all, WebObjects uses the same development environment).

CodeWarrior is great for what it does -- facilitating the development of Classic and Carbon Mac OS X applications. For some projects, though, it would be ridiculous to use Carbon (and therefore CodeWarrior). For some projects, it would be ridiculous to use Cocoa. But don't go spouting off this nonsense about CodeWarrior being the tool of choice for "real developers". Real developers pick the tools that best suit their needs -- and from what I've seen, quite often those tools will be the ones Apple inherited from NeXT.

I'm hoping the tools are free, so that it's easier for developers to create software for the platform and build up its library. But Apple could easily sell them and be very successful at it.

Most of DP4 was written using CodeWarrior. CodeWarrior does have Cocoa support in CodeWarrior 6 which is in beta. Yes real developers will use real and powerful tools to program with. Real developers will write their code in CodeWarrior.

Originally posted by anonymous:

"Real developers would choose Code Warrior"?!?

I guess the folks at id Software aren't real developers because they developed the Quake map editors in Cocoa (then OPENSTEP). I guess the people at Omni aren't real developers because two of them alone wrote their kick-butt web browser in Cocoa (not to mention porting Quake 2 and Quake 3). I guess the programmers at Apple aren't real developers because the majority of the applications included in Mac OS X were written in Cocoa using the very tools they supply. I guess every single WebObjects developer isn't a "real developer" (after all, WebObjects uses the same development environment).

CodeWarrior is great for what it does -- facilitating the development of Classic and Carbon Mac OS X applications. For some projects, though, it would be ridiculous to use Carbon (and therefore CodeWarrior). For some projects, it would be ridiculous to use Cocoa. But don't go spouting off this nonsense about CodeWarrior being the tool of choice for "real developers". Real developers pick the tools that best suit their needs -- and from what I've seen, quite often those tools will be the ones Apple inherited from NeXT.

I'm hoping the tools are free, so that it's easier for developers to create software for the platform and build up its library. But Apple could easily sell them and be very successful at it.

------------------
The goal of Project Freedom is to point users to solutions which brings the classic feel of the Mac OS to Mac OS X. (Mac OS X) Project Freedom

Since when is CodeWarrior supporting Objective-C? Since when is it supporting Mac OS X nib files? These are pretty much required for a real Cocoa development environment. AFAIK, the only Cocoa support CodeWarrior could have is access to the com.apple.yellow.foundation and com.apple.yellow.appkit frameworks in Java. I've read everything I can find on CodeWarrior's Mac OS X support, and it's Carbon, Carbon, Carbon. That's great if you want to develop using Carbon -- CodeWarrior's a mighty fine product, there's no denying that. But I don't know where you're getting this "Cocoa support in CodeWarrior 6" info.

As for most of DP4 being developed in CodeWarrior, just what parts are you talking about? The major underlying parts of the OS are Darwin, which wasn't written using CodeWarrior. Most of that is taken from Mach, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, combined with Apple's own work that was written in Mac OS X Server or Mac OS X using Apple's development tools. Certain Carbon applications in Mac OS X may well have been written using CodeWarrior (e.g. the Finder, Quicktime, etc), which are certainly important parts of the OS, but you'll still have to qualify "most of DP4".

Look, I'm not arguing that CodeWarrior isn't a great tool. It's just that you seem to think CodeWarrior is the only tool anyone could do serious development on, and that's simply not true. It's been the major development tool on the Mac in the past, and it has that going for it, but you're underestimating the power of the IB/PB combination inherited from NeXT and the Cocoa frameworks it's built around. For new Mac OS X native applications, I believe IB/PB will be the more sensible environment for many "real developers."

From what I've heard, even the MacOS Finder in OS X was built using a carbonized version of Codewarrior's PowerPlant. That really surprises me - why didn't they use Cocoa?

Ok yes DP4 was built on top of darwin. When I am talkinga bout most of DP4 I am talking about the no Darwin parts.

I did hear from someone from MetroWerks that CodeWarrior will support Cocoa (object-c). If they where mis informed or not I couldn't say... I am just going by what an employee said. Also I do recall hearing/reading that CodeWarrior 6 will be able to use gcc and g++ at compile time. I would find it hard to believe that Darwin would have no object-c support. That is I would find it hard to believe you couldn't write an app for darwin and not make that app in object-c. Their for any app could hook into a object-c compiler (their are a few gnu ones i believe). So I can't see why you need the Project Builder to make a Cocoa app...

I am not saying that apple tools are junk (ok MPW is). I am just saying the real developers... the one who will make software and sell it for 60-500+ an app will more and likly go with CodeWarrior. Over 90% of app professional mac appls are built with codewarrior are you going to tell me that metrowerks will just let the developers leave them along 250 upgrade fees for upgrades? I think not.

It just makes common sense that apple would have Project Builder as a free add-on or a very cheap one. Other wise your going to smother development on OS X.

CodeWarrior is a profesional program, so is WebObjects (which is very different)...

Originally posted by anonymous:
Since when is CodeWarrior supporting Objective-C? Since when is it supporting Mac OS X nib files? These are pretty much required for a real Cocoa development environment. AFAIK, the only Cocoa support CodeWarrior could have is access to the com.apple.yellow.foundation and com.apple.yellow.appkit frameworks in Java. I've read everything I can find on CodeWarrior's Mac OS X support, and it's Carbon, Carbon, Carbon. That's great if you want to develop using Carbon -- CodeWarrior's a mighty fine product, there's no denying that. But I don't know where you're getting this "Cocoa support in CodeWarrior 6" info.

As for most of DP4 being developed in CodeWarrior, just what parts are you talking about? The major underlying parts of the OS are Darwin, which wasn't written using CodeWarrior. Most of that is taken from Mach, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, combined with Apple's own work that was written in Mac OS X Server or Mac OS X using Apple's development tools. Certain Carbon applications in Mac OS X may well have been written using CodeWarrior (e.g. the Finder, Quicktime, etc), which are certainly important parts of the OS, but you'll still have to qualify "most of DP4".

Look, I'm not arguing that CodeWarrior isn't a great tool. It's just that you seem to think CodeWarrior is the only tool anyone could do serious development on, and that's simply not true. It's been the major development tool on the Mac in the past, and it has that going for it, but you're underestimating the power of the IB/PB combination inherited from NeXT and the Cocoa frameworks it's built around. For new Mac OS X native applications, I believe IB/PB will be the more sensible environment for many "real developers."

------------------
The goal of Project Freedom is to point users to solutions which brings the classic feel of the Mac OS to Mac OS X. (Mac OS X) Project Freedom

The Mac OS X Finder was written in Carbon for several reasons. One was probably to prove that Carbon really is a viable API for development (since up to that point Apple was going to make everyone re-write apps using Cocoa). Another likely one would be compatibility: the Carbon API's have long supported the split-fork nature of the Mac, for example, and having a Carbon Finder would probably integrate better with the initial applications that Mac OS X will have, which will mostly be Carbon versions of existing apps. I have yet to see anything suggesting that PowerPlant was used, although there is a PowerPlant.framework included in DP4, so it's quite possible...

gcc does support Objective-C (it couldn't be used for Project Builder if it didn't), and Darwin has Objective-C code in it. I hadn't realized that the ability to use gcc was being added to CodeWarrior...so assuming you used gcc and had a plug-in editor that recognized the syntax, it would be viable for Objective-C development. You're still missing Interface Builder, though, which is a major part of Cocoa development...and again, there is nothing else that can build nib files at this point, to my knowledge. Your comments seem to indicate that you don't quite understand what Cocoa is and how it works.

I don't doubt that 90% of Mac applications are written in CodeWarrior. When there is no viable alternative, what do you expect? MPW isn't as nice, and REALBasic is bloated and not as powerful. Of course CodeWarrior is the most popular.

100% of NeXT apps were written in PB/IB, in less time and with fewer programmers than the same types of projects written for the Mac. Some of these programmers were originally developing for the Mac, and switched when they saw how easy Cocoa made it to develop complex apps. Again, though, this number isn't very helpful since there was no other viable development environment for NeXT.

Now there will be two viable environments for the Mac, giving developers a choice. Some will stay with CodeWarrior, but there have already been some that have moved to PB/IB. It all depends on what they're building and what platform they're targeting. Time will tell which one more people prefer...chances are, both will be around for a long time.

And no, WebObjects is *not* very different. The development tools portion of WebObjects consists of Project Builder, Interface Builder, WebObjects Builder, Enterprise Objects Modeler, an XML parser, and some wizards to help speed things along. It is the same environment used to develop Mac OS X applications, but it has some additional web-specific tools and additional web-specific frameworks.

I suppose the only way this will be resolved is when we start to see what applications appear with Mac OS X. If major $50-$5000 applications use Cocoa, you're "real developers" comment will be proven false. If there are no such applications, then it will be clear the CodeWarrior is the supreme environment after all. Personally, I've looked at Carbon and Cocoa, looked at the development environments, and for me, Cocoa is the answer, using IB/PB. For anyone else, I say examine them both, try them both, pick the one that best suits your needs.

And now, getting back to the original question...

Originally posted by mthompson:
Does anyone know if the Cocoa/Carbon developer tools will be included in the Beta release?

Interestingly enough, Apple has posted a PDF on their developer web site entitled "Carbon Porting Guide", the cover sheet of which says "For Mac OS X Public Beta." On page 53, the following quote can be found:

"Project Builder can be found on the OS X Beta Developer Tools CD."

Also of note are quotes like:
"Path /System/Developer/Tools/LaunchCFMApp is now /Developer/Tools/LaunchCFMApp" and "Path /System/Administration/Terminal.app is now /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app", which reflect an easier-to-use directory structure (and the continued presence of Terminal.app). The screenshots in the file are rather out-of-date, though.

WebObjects is different in the tems of what it does... That is what my point is.

Think back to the old days off apple you need to use ResEdit to make your resource files. Not other apps exist for that.

All that I am trying to say is apple will be foolish if they didn't have Project Builder, Interface Builder and such as a free add-on to the OS. One of the best ways to spur development for an OS is to have development tools that are easy to access. This is where Project Builer, Interface Builder and such comes into play. Apple is the only company who could offer everyon OS X user access to the development tools at a great price (free). You did mention RealBasic which is cheap but I am not sure if anyone could logical make the jump from a candy coated development system to someting like object C with out many pains.

So my point is this. Apple sould have its tools free. CodeWarrior will make huge advances over Apple tools. Developers (the big guys) will move to CodeWarrior.

And no I am far from an object-c expert. I looked it over a few times and I just didn't have the time to digg into it. I am more a fan of C++ with all of it flaws (wich I like). I know the advanges of Object-C. I understand a nib file is just a file package that stores the apps interface, much like resource fork.

I am not a big NeXT historian or anyting but did NeXT have any other developent tools other than the ones supplyed my NeXT?

------------------
The goal of Project Freedom is to point users to solutions which brings the classic feel of the Mac OS to Mac OS X. (Mac OS X) Project Freedom

Originally posted by X Freedom:
So my point is this. Apple sould have its tools free. CodeWarrior will make huge advances over Apple tools. Developers (the big guys) will move to CodeWarrior.

And no I am far from an object-c expert. I looked it over a few times and I just didn't have the time to digg into it. I am more a fan of C++ with all of it flaws (wich I like). I know the advanges of Object-C. I understand a nib file is just a file package that stores the apps interface, much like resource fork.

This is where you're mistaken. Nib files are much more than a simple resource file. Interface Builder is not just a dialog-resource editor like in most C++ environments I've seen. It does allow you to drag-and-drop elements onto a window, but it goes a lot further than that. Each element has attributes, such as how it should auto-resize, which element should be next in the tab order, and so forth. You can add a font panel to your application simply by dragging the appropriate item to the menu bar. Your classes are designed in Interface Builder and connected to the elements in your interface before you write a line of code. The nib file stores not only the layout, but how the objects in your application communicate with each other and with the interface. No resource ID's to bother with; simply create a class "outlet" (variable) and draw a connecting line between it and the interface element it references. It's easy and elegant, and you can have a fully functioning interface in a matter of minutes. It's a lot like Visual Basic / REALBasic in that respect, except you're programming in C, Objective-C, and C++ (and now Java) instead of an offshoot of BASIC.

I am not a big NeXT historian or anyting but did NeXT have any other developent tools other than the ones supplyed my NeXT?

I think all of the development tools for NeXT were things that complemented PB/IB. Why would there be anything else? One of NeXT's main selling points was its object-oriented development environment. It would have been an even bigger selling point for Apple if they had maintained the cross-platform aspect of it (write in Cocoa and your app runs on both Mac OS X and Windows).

I agree that the tools should be free, but because they should be easily available to encourage development -- not because they are in any way less powerful than CodeWarrior.

[proceedNeXT]

*sigh* May I suggest to read this aricle at Stepwise: http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Bus...fBusiness.html



[Edit: Stepwise, not Stewise ]

[This message has been edited by proceedNeXT (edited 08-07-2000).]

Other REAL developers use REALbasic.

Alphas of which allow you to create native applications for Classic, Mac OS X, and Windows from the same project.

[This message has been edited by lrivers (edited 09-13-2000).]

Originally posted by Wrigley:
From what I've heard, even the MacOS Finder in OS X was built using a carbonized version of Codewarrior's PowerPlant. That really surprises me - why didn't they use Cocoa?

Because they wanted in to run on OS 9 as well.

[Angus_D]

No, Cocoa/Carbon developer tools are NOT included in the Beta release, but they will apparantly be availalbe free to all registered members of ADC Online (free membership) from mid-october for download. ADC Select & Premier members should have started receiving their free copies of Public Beta (with the Developer Tools CD and a reference manual) as of yesterday.

Hope that helps.