Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Salty · Sep 15, 2005, 08:13 PM

I was just thinking of this just now. But anyway, just to be clear we're not talking about apps like Mail and iPhoto and what not that are big sellers or used by a lot of people. I'm talking about feature filled apps that are specialized for certain purposes. Like apps that are like big and expensive and important, ones that people's jobs are built on, stuff like Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, those sorts of apps. It seems most of the massively important apps are all written in carbon. Granted I know for the most part that's because of old code bases, or needing to keep compatibility with windows and stuff. But still one would think that for all the awesomeness of Cocoa there would be more apps written in it.

Love Calm Quiet · Sep 15, 2005, 10:39 PM

I'm not a coder, so I don't know the implications... it's easier to write in Carbon if you're also writing a windows version?

Does that have any implications for writing for Mactel? Will we be seeing even fewer Cocoa apps?

goMac · Sep 15, 2005, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Love Calm Quiet

I'm not a coder, so I don't know the implications... it's easier to write in Carbon if you're also writing a windows version?

No, it's not.

Halo is a major software title that is in Cocoa. Originally Return to Castle Wolfenstien was in Cocoa also.

Anything new=Cocoa. Anything that had an OS 9 version, Carbon.

hayesk · Sep 15, 2005, 10:43 PM

It's not necessarily easier to write in Carbon if you're writing a Windows version. Carbon is different from MFC too. Apps that have been around before MacOS X tend to be written in Carbon because most developers didn't want to rewrite their apps from scratch. That's the whole reason we have Carbon - Apple didn't want include Carbon in MacOS X but were forced to do it because the third party developers demanded it.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 15, 2005, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

No, it's not.

Halo is a major software title that is in Cocoa. Originally Return to Castle Wolfenstien was in Cocoa also.

Anything new=Cocoa. Anything that had an OS 9 version, Carbon.

Just a game application loader written in Cocoa doesn't add to much. It's not like any of those games where completely written in Cocoa or anything

Hawkeye_a · Sep 15, 2005, 11:51 PM

I do a lot of cocoa and OpenGL coding. And Windows APIs a re very differnt to the Macs(Carbon, Cocoa). But XCode does a damn fine job of handling different languages, You can throw classes written in C, C++ or Objective-C(different languages and different syntax) into the same file and compile it. And those classes can even communicate with each other. Basically image a spanish person talking to a russian person, and theyre both talking in their own languages and they understand each other.

Cocoa is awesome. very consistent and easy to find the functionality you need to get what you need done. I'm still explorining it, and conside myself a newbie, just cause there's so much.

As far as custom applications..... Luxology's 3D modelling app looks like a good use of it. Maya seems to use some sort of universal API for it's versions of Maya. And as far as custom apps....my best guess would be businesses would be writing/using them.....and you can imagine how many of them do that, given the limited talent and useage of macs in business that need custom Apps.

Cheers

Salty · Sep 16, 2005, 12:56 AM

Keep in mind I don't mean this to be a carbon vs. cocoa thing. I just find it interesting that aside from apps aimed at consumers that are really cool but aren't anything that you need for work (everything from Omni, Delicious Monster, some of the iApps as well as iWork) everything seems to be written in carbon. Perhaps this is because no majorly important apps have really been written since OS X came on the scene...

starman · Sep 16, 2005, 01:12 AM

No, it's because there's a lot of legacy stuff out there that people don't want to rewrite. I'm trying to push our stuff to be rewritten in Cocoa but it won't fly, even though everyone agrees that Cocoa kicks ass.

Mike

DeathMan · Sep 16, 2005, 01:15 AM

Its because the "Big Pro Apps" have been been around for a while. Supply and Demand, you know? There was no Cocoa back then. CSSEdit, which to me is a very Pro-Grade software application, priced so well, he's practically giving it away, I'm pretty sure is in Cocoa (maybe someone from Macrabbit can back me up on this one). Also, Omni creates some very Pro apps like OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner (which I just licensed today, thanks guys). They may not be Photoshop (thankfully they're priced in a more reasonable bracket) but they're very powerful, and better than a lot of apps that you might consider needed for work.

Hawkeye_a · Sep 16, 2005, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by starman

No, it's because there's a lot of legacy stuff out there that people don't want to rewrite. I'm trying to push our stuff to be rewritten in Cocoa but it won't fly, even though everyone agrees that Cocoa kicks ass.

Mike

i agree. it'll take time for Cocoa to establish itself. Also most of the apps we use havent 'changed' all that much to begin with (they fundamentally have to do the same thing n the end). Except for the iApps, which i suspect are written in Cocoa.

Are there any performance benefits for using Cocoa over Carbon ? for some reason im under the impression there is.i remember at WWDC(the year when OSX was officially released) Apple was really pushing for devs to use cocoa over carbon.

Millennium · Sep 16, 2005, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by Love Calm Quiet

I'm not a coder, so I don't know the implications... it's easier to write in Carbon if you're also writing a windows version?

Often, yes. Many cross-platform developers use frameworks which allow them to use the same code for the GUI as well as the backend, and it's very difficult to get that to work right with Cocoa. Note that MFC isn't very popular on Windows either, for very similar reasons.

As a result, there are very few Cocoa cross-platform apps. As GNUstep matures this may change, but I don't think we'll see many Cocoa cross-platform apps until Cocoa can be made to work reliably on Windows.

Does that have any implications for writing for Mactel? Will we be seeing even fewer Cocoa apps?

I doubt it. It doesn't mean anything different for Mactel than for MacPPC. If we start seeing more cross-platform developers, then we may start seeing a greater proportion of Carbon apps, but those who want to use Cocoa will continue to use it, for the same reasons they do today.

Millennium · Sep 16, 2005, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Are there any performance benefits for using Cocoa over Carbon ? for some reason im under the impression there is.i remember at WWDC(the year when OSX was officially released) Apple was really pushing for devs to use cocoa over carbon.

One thing to keep in mind is that "Cocoa" and "Carbon" are only GUI APIs. The other APIs on OSX: CoreAudio, QuickTime, and such, are accessible from both but can't really be said to be part of either.

I bring this up because if you want to talk about performance issues, then technically Carbon is faster, but not by enough that anyone would notice the difference. You'd have to use thousands of GUI elements at once -more than can fit on most screens- before the speed hit became noticeable.

Salty · Sep 16, 2005, 11:28 PM

You know I gota say, I'd sooner see more apps that are written for windows and OS X be rewritten with more native feeling tool bars. Take photoshop for example, a lot of those elements in the top bar that they leave at the top could probably easily fit in a standard menu bar like Keynote or Pages uses. As well an inspector like window like Pages and Keynote uses would probably be better too. If Adobe and Macromedia had made the apps more officially native they wouldn't have wound up in court with each-other a while back.

goMac · Sep 16, 2005, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Just a game application loader written in Cocoa doesn't add to much. It's not like any of those games where completely written in Cocoa or anything

All Cocoa is is a front end language really. Just recently with CoreData and CoreImage did it begin to show any sort of use beyond GUI's.

Any game using Cocoa isn't going to be written in Cocoa itself. That's far too slow. Most programs are going to couple a Cocoa front end with a C or C++ backend. Thats why Carbon isn't any more compatible with Windows. Cocoa still supports C or C++ backends.

goMac · Sep 16, 2005, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I doubt it. It doesn't mean anything different for Mactel than for MacPPC. If we start seeing more cross-platform developers, then we may start seeing a greater proportion of Carbon apps, but those who want to use Cocoa will continue to use it, for the same reasons they do today.

Again, Carbon is not an easier language to do Windows ports in. Carbon will for the most part be the language the GUI for the port is built in, and Cocoa is a far better language for building a GUI. In addition Cocoa can still run the same ported C/C++ code you'd normally couple with Carbon.

Both Carbon and Cocoa are equally incompatible with Win32.