[stew]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The demise of Carbon was clear] from the start, just the exact point in time was not.

And that's why the (still current) developer documentation for HIToobox says this?

It’s the Future

Apple is committed to the HIViews, Carbon events, and nib files for Carbon implementations of the user interface. All new controls and other features will be based on HIView. If you want your application to take advantage of the latest features, you need to adopt the modern HIToolbox.

If Carbon was a dead-end anyway, why did Apple go through the trouble of adding features to it during 10.0 - 10.5, ported it to Intel and shipped betas of a 64bit version?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stew 

If Carbon was a dead-end anyway, why did Apple go through the trouble of adding features to it during 10.0 - 10.5, ported it to Intel and shipped betas of a 64bit version?

You might have trouble understanding the message, but here it is again:

NO 64 BIT VERSION OF CARBON FROM APPLE !!!!1!1!11oneoneeleventy

It doesn't matter what they did in the past; Apple has changed its mind, that's it. End of discussion.

-t

[stew]

Obviously. And those who didn't learn it from the 3GHz G5 hopefully learn it this time: ignore anything Apple announces. Wait until it ships (or not).

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Thinine 

Your response doesn't have anything to do with what I was responding to.

Yeah it did, your use of the word "bullied," which was fairly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What part of Charles' post was syllogistic? (I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just didn't notice any syllogisms and I'm curious.)

He just likes to hear himself say multi-syllabic words.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Who cares...Adobe is dead.

After making the client pay exorbitant prices for paltry upgrades of their flagship (read flagshit) app, I'm glad swept the rug from underneath this lousy company. At least now Apple is making them actually WORK for their stupidity...sure, clients will still be forced to pay for the 64-bit version like they were forced to pay for the x86 Mac version or the Carbon port...but nothing beats the satisfaction of seeing this dysfunctional company rewrite their System 6 legacy piece of **** into a somewhat more modern app or fold.

Had Adobe clued in on the warning 10 years ago, it could have saved years of work porting to Cocoa early instead of Carbon, then work in Intel support, then rewriting for 64-bit (if they ever rewrite PS).

[CharlesS]

^ Maybe if they didn't have to rewrite their whole app every release, they'd be able to make the upgrades less "paltry" in terms of actual features.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

^ Maybe if they didn't have to rewrite their whole app every release, they'd be able to make the upgrades less "paltry" in terms of actual features.

Or maaaaybe if they had started rewriting their whole app 10 years ago, they wouldn't need to 'rewrite' for Intel support or 64-bit support and actually concentrate on actual features.

Did they think Apple would provide a System 6 compatibility layer across all future processor and OS advancements? Sure, this is a huge hyperbole of a statement but think about it...

Frankly, I don't understand why Photoshop is "so huge". The only reason why it's "xbox huge lol" is because everything is self-contained...because they refuse to use OS frameworks. Sure, the explanation is logic: these frameworks didn't exist during System 6-9 days so every feature had to be written from scratch...then the Windows port had to match with the Mac version so using OS specific frameworks was out of the question apparently.

But when I see small apps like Pixelmator achieve 50% of Photoshop CS3's capabilities in version 1.0 and when I learn that it's the work of two people, I sit down and marvel at Adobe's inefficiency. Truly, Adobe is the definition of inefficiency.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Or maaaaybe if they had started rewriting their whole app 10 years ago, they wouldn't need to 'rewrite' for Intel support or 64-bit support and actually concentrate on actual features.

Maybe rewriting one of the largest desktop apps on the planet is a nontrivial undertaking and there wasn't any pressing need for them to completely rewrite (and introduce countless new bugs into) a more or less stable foundation?

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Did they think Apple would provide a System 6 compatibility layer across all future processor and OS advancements?

Probably not. I don't think Apple's provided a System 6 compatibility layer for quite some time.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

^ Maybe if they didn't have to rewrite their whole app every release, they'd be able to make the upgrades less "paltry" in terms of actual features.

As far as I can recall at the moment, the only things that have really mandated a substantial rewrite to otherwise perfectly good code are the requirement of Carbon and now Cocoa. That's hardly every release.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Or maaaaybe if they had started rewriting their whole app 10 years ago, they wouldn't need to 'rewrite' for Intel support or 64-bit support and actually concentrate on actual features.

Did they think Apple would provide a System 6 compatibility layer across all future processor and OS advancements? Sure, this is a huge hyperbole of a statement but think about it...

Carbon wasn't a compatibility layer. It was a full-fledged API, upon which Cocoa was originally going to be rebuilt. Why would Adobe have any reason to believe that Carbon was going away? Apple said it was the future.

You're also forgetting that the reason Carbon was made was because Adobe and others didn't want to have to rewrite their apps in Cocoa, because such an undertaking would be infeasibly large. Thing is, doing such a thing isn't any easier in 2008 than it was in 1998...

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Maybe rewriting one of the largest desktop apps on the planet is a nontrivial undertaking and there wasn't any pressing need for them to completely rewrite (and introduce countless new bugs into) a more or less stable foundation?

He probably thinks they just need to click on a check box somewhere.

As far as I can recall at the moment, the only things that have really mandated a substantial rewrite to otherwise perfectly good code are the requirement of Carbon and now Cocoa. That's hardly every release.

Don't forget about the need to move the whole project over to Xcode. Granted, that's not a complete rewrite, but was still a huge problem for a project that large. And then of course you have numerous endian issues to sort out, which is always loads of fun.

[mindwaves]

Adobe has a history of being behind the times when it comes to OS X software. Adobe is a big company with many developers. Apple has successfully ported many of their apps from Carbon to Cocoa in a very fast amount of time. Apple has also coded many apps from scratch on a Cocoa base. If Adobe had really wanted to, there is no reason why they should not be capable of the same.

[Big Mac]

How many Apple apps have gone from Carbon to Cocoa?

[OreoCookie]

Even Quark uses Cocoa in its new applications and for (at least some) new features in Xpress. Future versions of Quark will probably use a combination of Mono and Cocoa.

I don't think complete resistance to adopting new technology because `It's hard' is really an excuse if Adobe wants to survive.

[Chuckit]

There's a pretty big difference between using Cocoa in a new, small application and being required to rewrite a large application for Cocoa. It's like the difference between installing a certain brand of pipes when a house is built and tearing down the house to install that brand of pipes. Nobody cares what brand the pipes are if they end up working the same, so it's all just a lot of expensive work just to get back to where you were to begin with.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How many Apple apps have gone from Carbon to Cocoa?

At least DVD Studio Pro, iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD. Aperture has been written in Cocoa as well. Since I don't use DVD Studio Pro, I'm not sure whether its complexity is really comparable to Final Cut.

However, Apple has (by its own admission) rewritten quite a few other large apps in Carbon, among them the Finder. I don't think that's any less of an undertaking. Oh, someone in the movie software industry told me that Shake will be replaced, too, by something completely new (the signs point in that direction, too). Not sure if it's Cocoa, but it's a complete rewrite.

[Chuckit]

Wow, good memory. I'd completely forgotten that iPhoto 1 was Carbon.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's a pretty big difference between using Cocoa in a new, small application and being required to rewrite a large application for Cocoa. It's like the difference between installing a certain brand of pipes when a house is built and tearing down the house to install that brand of pipes. Nobody cares what brand the pipes are if they end up working the same, so it's all just a lot of expensive work just to get back to where you were to begin with.

That's right. But on the other hand, you can't keep the same plumbing indefinitely.
Quark has decided to go with Mono (Windows)/Mono + Cocoa (OS X). I'm sure it'll be a smooth transition (i. e. they will replace pipe-by-pipe), but eventually they will have replaced all of the pipes that needed replacement. I don't have the impression Adobe is doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wow, good memory. I'd completely forgotten that iPhoto 1 was Carbon.

iDVD 1 ran on OS 9 … long, long time ago, of course

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple, Inc. may not need Adobe and M$, but the Mac platform would be substantially affected if they pulled their support. Apple really should be done with it and buy Adobe already, a move I've been advocating for years.

How realistic is that? What's Abobe's networth? I know Apple's ridiculously liquid and has been doing very well, but Adobe's not easy pickings, is it?

Hey, wouldn't it be funny to hear Microsoft cry foul about Apple acquiring Adobe? That would tickle me.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Who cares...Adobe is dead.

After making the client pay exorbitant prices for paltry upgrades of their flagship (read flagshit) app, I'm glad swept the rug from underneath this lousy company. At least now Apple is making them actually WORK for their stupidity...sure, clients will still be forced to pay for the 64-bit version like they were forced to pay for the x86 Mac version or the Carbon port...but nothing beats the satisfaction of seeing this dysfunctional company rewrite their System 6 legacy piece of **** into a somewhat more modern app or fold.

Had Adobe clued in on the warning 10 years ago, it could have saved years of work porting to Cocoa early instead of Carbon, then work in Intel support, then rewriting for 64-bit (if they ever rewrite PS).

Dead?

Huh? I thought after acquiring Macromedia they pretty much cemented themselves as the cornerstone of graphics and web design? They're ubiquitous.

How can they be dead? But then, they also need to realize where Apple is now. Apple's not the pathetic, barely-hanging-on also-ran that they were when Adobe was a key platform for their survival in the late 90's. Macs broke 20% market share last quarter. Adobe can't afford not to work with Apple...and Apple really shouldn't be looking not to work with Adobe. Aperture is a long, long way from competing with Photoshop.

[Big Mac]

Adobe's market cap is $20.7B. Apple could pay $10B in cash in $15B in stock and that would be a nice premium. It could be done.