[OreoCookie]

By chance, does anyone know whether or not iMovie3 is a complete rewritch from Cocoa scratch?

[mattfong]

Yes, iMovie 3 is a Cocoa app. Apple is eating their own dog food

mattfong

[mitchell_pgh]

how do you know that? Wow, I didn't think they ever would do that... Just keep it carbon forever...

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
how do you know that? Wow, I didn't think they ever would do that... Just keep it carbon forever...

Why? Apple has stated many times that they wanted people to write their software in Cocoa.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is undergoing major rewrites of all their remaining Carbon apps. Now that QuickTime Player it doesn't have to be shared with OS 9 (OS 9 is dead to Apple, remember?) we'll probably see a Cocoa QuickTime Player.

The Finder will probably be rewritten to despite what people say.

We might see a Cocoa iTunes as soon as iTunes 4 (I mean c'mon, it ain't *that* hard to implement Rendezvous right? What could be taking so long? Wouldn't Apple rollout Rendezvous support in an iTunes point release?)

Then what? DVD Player? Yes, this app needs to handle DVDs better...and it needs to support 5.1 even though the Apple hardware doesn't.

Am I missing anything or were those the only remaining Carbon apps?

[CheesePuff]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Why? Apple has stated many times that they wanted people to write their software in Cocoa.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is undergoing major rewrites of all their remaining Carbon apps. Now that QuickTime Player it doesn't have to be shared with OS 9 (OS 9 is dead to Apple, remember?) we'll probably see a Cocoa QuickTime Player.

The Finder will probably be rewritten to despite what people say.

We might see a Cocoa iTunes as soon as iTunes 4 (I mean c'mon, it ain't *that* hard to implement Rendezvous right? What could be taking so long? Wouldn't Apple rollout Rendezvous support in an iTunes point release?)

Then what? DVD Player? Yes, this app needs to handle DVDs better...and it needs to support 5.1 even though the Apple hardware doesn't.

Am I missing anything or were those the only remaining Carbon apps?

Stickies, Key Caps, and one other one which I forget is still Carbon.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Why? Apple has stated many times that they wanted people to write their software in Cocoa.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is undergoing major rewrites of all their remaining Carbon apps. Now that QuickTime Player it doesn't have to be shared with OS 9 (OS 9 is dead to Apple, remember?) we'll probably see a Cocoa QuickTime Player.

The Finder will probably be rewritten to despite what people say.

We might see a Cocoa iTunes as soon as iTunes 4 (I mean c'mon, it ain't *that* hard to implement Rendezvous right? What could be taking so long? Wouldn't Apple rollout Rendezvous support in an iTunes point release?)

Then what? DVD Player? Yes, this app needs to handle DVDs better...and it needs to support 5.1 even though the Apple hardware doesn't.

Am I missing anything or were those the only remaining Carbon apps?

Oh no! Another Guy Ignorant post! Hellllp!

I think Apple's Carbon apps are pretty ****ing neat. And they don't need cocoa to be neater. They need better code - period.

A Cocoa quicktime is pretty easy (NSMovie+NSMovieView anyone?) to do but I don't see WHY they should port it to cocoa as
Cocoa!=faster.

Your point is ****.

[hellohello1]

mattfong:

how do you know it's cocoa? just curious, i'm surprised as well if this is true

[sinthetique]

Jobs stated it was a rewrite when he introduced it at the keynote.

Originally posted by hellohello1:
mattfong:

how do you know it's cocoa? just curious, i'm surprised as well if this is true

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
Stickies, Key Caps, and one other one which I forget is still Carbon.

Stickies is Cocoa.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by ambush:
Oh no! Another Guy Ignorant post! Hellllp!

Oh no! Another useless post by Ambush.! Hellllp!

Bye Ambush...if you've got other things than complaining to do, then by all means stay.

[BuonRotto]

KeyCaps will soon go the way of the do-do, repaced by the character palette.

Anyhoo, Cocoa and Carbon are slowly merging into the larger entity known as Corefoundation. There will always be pieces that belong to one type of programming interface, but it's going to be ala carte even moreso than now.

iMovie does look to be Cocoa, and that would explain the long wait between version 2 and 3.

[Thinine]

Originally Posted by Guy Incognito

We might see a Cocoa iTunes as soon as iTunes 4 (I mean c'mon, it ain't *that* hard to implement Rendezvous right? What could be taking so long? Wouldn't Apple rollout Rendezvous support in an iTunes point release?)

Then what? DVD Player? Yes, this app needs to handle DVDs better...and it needs to support 5.1 even though the Apple hardware doesn't.

It isn't just Rendevous that will be in the next iTunes but the ability to play songs off another persons computer. It is thought that Apple will accomplish this by using a QuickTime Streaming Server type setup, only integrated into iTunes and using the Rendevous. So this is much harder than it sounds.

As for the DVD player, I think Apple will rewrite it for the 10.3 release. The current DVD player is like the MP3 player in the Public Beta, just enough to provide basic funtionality. So I hope to see an iTunes quality DVD player (e.g. industry leading) using OS X native technologies like Cocoa and CoreAudio by the end of the year.

2003 will be the best Apple year in a long time!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BuonRotto:
Anyhoo, Cocoa and Carbon are slowly merging into the larger entity known as Corefoundation.

Close, but not quite. Cocoa and Carbon are merging, or, to be more precise, Carbon is being rewritten now, so that Cocoa can be rewritten on top of it. This will fuse the two API's such that Cocoa becomes the high-level API and Carbon becomes the low-level one.

CoreFoundation, on the other hand, is something different. It's a set of very basic API calls -low-level enough that it's not even considered Carbon- which Apple considers to be essential. In fact, the Cocoa analog to this -FoundationKit- is already merged with CoreFoundation, and has been since the earliest days of OSX. Also, don't quote me on this, but I think CoreFoundation is Open-Sourced as a part of Darwin (though nothing higher-level than that is).

Not that it matters. We (meaning most of us at MacNN who have any real knowledge of Carbon and Cocoa) have tried over and over again to explain to certain members of our community who shall remain nameless that Carbon can be every bit as good as Cocoa, in the hands of a developer willing to put forth the effort. These people -I call them Cocoa-for-Cocoa's-sake zealots- seem to be dismissing out of hand the entire notion that neither API is inherently superior to the other, and nothing we say even gets through to them. I wonder if they're even listening.

Yes, it does take some extra effort to make a good Carbon app if you're starting from a new codebase, but it's not without its rewards: among them the fact that a well-coded Carbon app will actually be slightly faster than an otherwise-identical Cocoa app (though this speed difference is not likely to be noticeable to humans unless the UI consists of literally hundreds of elements all onscreen at once). If you're starting from an existing codebase, then making a decent Carbon port still takes a fair bit of effort -porting efforts always do- but not nearly as much as a ground-up Cocoa rewrite would require. nless you're trying to port "Hello World" or something like that, but that's sort of a special case.

[Sharky K.]

a developer willing to put forth the effort

that is the problem here.
I prefere cocoa application just for possible less bugs, smaller applications and faster future updates.

I also think it has a lot to do with Interface Builder. I have never seen carbon developers see using interface builder.

[OreoCookie]

I do not consider myself a ?Cocoa zealot', but I just like the additional perks of Cocoa -- the Service Menu (yes, that will eventually come to Carbon), the nice font smoothing, less ?jitter' of the GUI (just feels a bit smoother).

[clarkgoble]

Speaking of rewrites - I heard a rumor that iTunes 1 was written in Applescript Studio of all things. Surely that isn't right! I tried out superficially the version of iTunes 2 floating around right now. It does seem noticably faster. Although it is a shocking 100 meg download. Far bigger than any other app, including Final Cut Pro! I've not poked around its internals yet to see what is inside. But I suspect it is a new rewrite. Lets hope it has better database internals and is multithreaded intelligently.

As for DVDPlayer. Yes that does need serious work. Rumor has it that Apple has been neglecting it something fierce. Those folks who make the 7.1 sound card for the Mac sent in a lot of comments to Apple but it doesn't sound like they got much by way of response. (The interview is linked to in the Peripheral forum - search for 7.1) The opensource DVD player plays the movies, even in DTS 7.1 with that card. However it basically ignores most of the menus and has limited searching and so forth - making it severely crippled.

One problem Apple may be facing is that I think they are in the doghouse with the RIAA because of not following MS in adopting DRM. Probably the iPod isn't giving them a warm fuzzy feeling. Especially given its marketshare. So I half wonder if that is part of the problem with the DVD player upgrade. Of course realistically Apple has limited resources, big changes coming over the next few months (a 64bit OS) and for the vast majority of users the DVD player is all they need.

Still Apple is updating the sound features in OSX so we should expect movement soon.

[edddeduck]

iTunes 1 was a Apple skined and feature removed version of Sound Jam....

Apple wrote almost nothing and definitely nothing to do with Apple Script Studio actually ASS was not released till much later....

100Mb??? what are you on???

anyway there you go the truth.... iTunes is an evolution/port to X of Sound Jam

Edwin

[proton]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Speaking of rewrites - I heard a rumor that iTunes 1 was written in Applescript Studio of all things. Surely that isn't right! I tried out superficially the version of iTunes 2 floating around right now. It does seem noticably faster. Although it is a shocking 100 meg download.
<snip>

iTunes 1 was available for Mac OS 9 before Mac OS X was released. It existed before AppleScript Studio existed. It is impossible for this to be true as AppleScript Studio was an addition to the Developer Tools in Mac OS X 10.1. iTunes 1 was based on SoundJam, one of the most popular MP3 applications for the Mac at the time.

My copy of iTunes 2 (the Mac OS 9 version, all my OS X machines have iTunes 3) is 3.7 MB -- that's the uncompressed application only. It also included about 1.2 MB of plug-ins. Wherever you got that 100 MB download from, it certainly wasn't just iTunes you got. iTunes 2 that came on new computers came with a nifty movie in the about box that is stored as Splash.mov somewhere near iTunes in the hard drive, I can't remember exactly where right now. Even with that however, iTunes 2 did not approach 100 MB.

- proton

[voodoo]

I think he's talking about iMovie.

[OreoCookie]

But are there any solid information out? All I heard was ?it looks like a rewrite' ...

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
But are there any solid information out? All I heard was ?it looks like a rewrite' ...

Well other than Steve saying it right there on the stage that iMovie 3 was completely rewritten, let's look at the hints:

1) iMovie 3 itself shows little resemblance to iMovie 2 because a) the app isn't forcing to fullscreen anymore b) all the widgets are using the new brushed-metal look...this in itself is a huge hint since, some apps still don't have this new brushed-metal look including the recently released QT 6.1 QT Player.

2) The very nature of such huge changes as interface changes, and iApps integration, and adding a new effects engine...anyone in their right mind would rewrite an app to make such big changes to keep coherent code for them to work on.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
all the widgets are using the new brushed-metal look...this in itself is a huge hint since, some apps still don't have this new brushed-metal look including the recently released QT 6.1 QT Player.

Carbon applications can use the new brushed metal appearance, but it would require a relative large rewrite to support the new HIView architecture. So they could have chosen to rewrite in Cocoa instead. We'll know in two weeks.

But I don't care actually. A Carbon Events/HIView based Carbon application is at least as good as a Cocoa one.

[Jan Van Boghout]

I do think it's a partial rewrite, but I don't see why they would throw away perfectly good code just to call it a complete rewrite. Also, I doubt it's entirely Cocoa. The UI probably is, but since Carbon can be more and more mixed with Cocoa, it's quite likely that the core is still Carbon just for speed's sake.

[megus]

I can't say I know much about either Carbon or Cocoa

But; does anybody know if a Cocoa application easily could be ported to run on the Intel-processor, if there was such a thing as Mac OS X for Intel that is?

//megus

[clarkgoble]

A lot of the basic Cocoa stuff is available on Linux. I think the name of the project is GnuStep or OpenStep. (The later was the name of OSX's Next owned precursor. However given that, I suspect that is not the name)

[clarkgoble]

I heard a rumor that iTunes 1 was written in Applescript Studio of all things.

Duh. Perils of writing late at night with insomnia. I meant I'd heard a rumor that iPhoto was written with Applescript Studio. I knew iTunes was from a company Apple bought.