[00101001]

i know this may seem a bit odd, but i had to say it.
First of all, i think that Cocoa is extremely powerful and an awesome API for OSX, but what sucks about it is the NAME.

"Cocoa" sucks. It needs to have a hardcore name so developers will want to program for it. It's pretty embarising to program for an API called "cocoa."

I can't think of a better name off the top of my head but maybe some of you have better suggestions.

[Brass]

Actually cocoa does suck, and not just the name. I agree that it's a great API and developer model, however, it seems to me that it's not very portable. I'm not developer so I could be wrong.

It seems to me that if developers are going to port existing apps from other OS's they're going to have to port to Carbon, or else do a complete rewrite from scratch for Cocoa (and then maintain two development streams).

Does anyone know any better info on this?

[JB72]

How 'bout "Hardcore Turbo Monster API?"

I like cocoa. Goes nicely with java. Anywyas they're not going to change it.



------------------
JB71.338x

Dock Pervert? You bet your ascot I am!

[Gametes]

Stop being so superficial. Who cares what it's called, especially when your
entire argument can be defeated via "well, I like it, so there!"
And as far as portability, the observation that cocoa is entirely seperate from
C++ is correct. I agree that 2 development streams will be required for
all software efforts. This isn't as bad as it seems for 2 reasons:
1) Cocoa is very easy to learn and develop for, relative to the efforts
that must be invested in C++ and the Win32 API.
2) With OS X, the Mac market share is going to increase, furthuring the
cost effectiveness of, and therefore incentive to, develop for X.

On a side note, I am writing this entire thing, and having a *blast*, entirely
on lynx, a text based web browser for Unix. Terminal all the way baby! It is also
about 450% faster than my browser, I guess because it lacks all the graphics
osxfaq.com had really easy instructions (8 1-line steps) to get it working;
You should all try it! Forgive all my break lines; it's easier to read that way!

[naepstn]

I, personally, don't give a rat's a$$ what the API is called, and I don't think that too many developers are so shallow as to refuse to develop software for an API because they don't particularly like the name. Nor do I think that any developer would write an app for the Mac JUST because they thought the API had a great sounding name. Think about it... would you base a business decision on something that superficial? I sure hope not!

As for the comment about cocoa not being very portable, that's true, and not true at the same time. If a windows app was written in Java, then porting to cocoa will be way easier than to Carbon. Ones written in C/C++ will no doubt be easier to port to Carbon. That's why having support for both APIs is wicked. You get the best of both worlds, and it opens the Mac market up to MORE apps in total.

[JB72]

Mucho Macho API? Sexy API? Hercules?



------------------
JB71.338x

Dock Pervert? You bet your ascot I am!

[zpincus]

It seems to me that if developers are going to port existing apps from other OS's they're going to have to port to Carbon, or else do a complete rewrite from scratch for Cocoa (and then maintain two development streams).

How is porting an app from another OS to carbon easier than porting it to cocca? Both are proprietary, mac-specific API's which you can't just tweak an app from a different OS to compile under-- you have to rewrite a lot of stuff to get a windows (or Be, etc.) program to compile for either API.

I thought carbon was only easier for developers with existing MacOS software. In this case, carbon really is easier, and the two development streams becomes an issue unless (or until) the developer finally says that their programs will only run under OS X. (Like in a few years when the legacy Mac issue [ie: can't run OS X] is not so huge.)

Zach

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Brass:
It seems to me that if developers are going to port existing apps from other OS's they're going to have to port to Carbon, or else do a complete rewrite from scratch for Cocoa (and then maintain two development streams).

It would appear to my not-so-knowledgable-in-these-things mind that there isn't much difference between porting to Cocoa and porting to Carbon. Re-write is re-write.
[Edit: Damn, zpincus beat me to that punchline by five minutes. But wait, there's more to come: ]

I believe that if a program is optimized for cross-platform use, they use libraries that are the same for all, and all that needs to be re-written is the app that loads and runs them. At least that's the way it seems with Quake, other games, and various plug-ins for other programs?

Am I off-base here, or is this true?

-chris.


[This message has been edited by Spheric Harlot (edited 02-11-2001).]

[mitchell_pgh]

Here are my new names for Cocoa:

1) "Titanium" keeping with the Carbon theme
2) Bo-Bo
3) Bam-Bam
4) M$_is_evil.API

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Here are my new names for Cocoa:

The IGS Environment.

(see if you can figure it out.)

-chris.

[havannas]

Right on, zpincus!

BTW - who cares about Windows? Do you think any small developers actually make much money selling commercial apps? That only works for the Adobes and Quarks and Macromedias of the computer world. Most developers/programmers don't sell commercial cross platform applications(Netscape anyone?), only a small minority do. Most make there money creating specialized applications and services for internal use by companies. Barring the creation of a p2p client/messenger I could give a crap about making something that works on Windows. BBEdit and DAVE are about the only small company efforts that probably generate any kind of money for the small mac developer. I'm sorry I'm ranting a bit.

[Cyzor]

Well, the name Cocoa has a long and distingushed history. There's Koko, the sign-language ape, as well as Coco, the cereal monkey.

As far as portability, Cocoa's predecessor used to have a cross-platform twin, Yellow Box for Windows, right? Do any Windows apps built with this API still exist?

[mxcantor]

I am sure that I will get flamed for this, but I beleive that you are all wrong. Much of Cocoa is based on the OpenSTEP API, which is not just availalbe, but free and open source for the PC. Since Cocoa and Openstep are so similar, a program could be ported from one to the other without much difficulty. Also, since the OpenStep libraries have been ported to windows, a developer could just include them in the installer. So, Cocoa, could make it really easy to program cross platform.

-Max

[naepstn]

mxcantor,

That's all well and good (and true as far as I know), but the point is that almost no apps are written in OpenStep (especially ones that would still be useful today, or not have an existing equivalent). Here we are dealing with the issue of porting an existing windows app to the Mac, for which the OpenStep API has no real bearing.

If someone was to write an app from the ground up with cross-platform compatibility in mind, then they'd likely write it in Java, using Cocoa as the API for Mac.

[Orbit]

OK.. had to intervene here.

1) Cocoa *is* the OpenStep API, just refined and tweaked to work with OS X. Most of the classes still start with "NS" (an abbreviation for, of course, NextStep).

2) Cocoa is REALLY easy to develop for. I wrote a small little temperature converter program with a GUI and basic functionality using ONE line of code. The whole thing took about 30 minutes, and that's only because I'd never done it before. It'd take about 5 minutes for anyone familiar with the API.

3) The only reason for Carbon is to ease the transition to OS X.. apps can be tweaked if they're written in Classic with "minimal" effort.. on the flipside, any developer who would rather work in Carbon than in Cocoa (unless they're concerned with backward compatibility) is an idiot. Well, maybe not, but they're making a mistake or know something that I must not know.

4) Since when was a platform-specific API required to be platform independent? Like Spheric Harlot said, if a developer is concerned with platform independence, they're not going to be using a proprietary API for their programming- they'll develop platform independent libraries. Targetting these libraries makes their code run on whatever platform the libraries support, they just have to compile for whatever ISA they want it to run on.

5) Last, and certainly least, the name. Come on now, really.. like "Java" is such a great name. Or "C++" for that matter. Or Fortran. Or how about "LISP"?? yeah..

Developers write programs in whatever language or environment lets them do the most with the least legwork. Cocoa fits this description, and there should be no problems getting it adoped widely over the next few years.

[gorgonzola]

Cocoa is a "clever" name if not a good one. It's based on the OpenStep APIs, which were Obj-C only, and Apple added support for Java -- hence Cocoa. Java --> Cocoa. Get it?

Carbon is there because it had to be there. Apple didn't want it, but it was obvious that Adobe would cause a ruckus about rewriting Photoshop. Classic --> Carbon is pretty quick. Of course it takes longer for huge apps, but that's just cause they're huge apps.

Cocoa is for people starting from scratch. New apps. Like Maya.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[Cyzor]

Interestingly enough, Maya is actually Carbon, at least in its current form.

Really? I heard it was Cocoa. But then again, that 37 million lines of code goes against what we've heard about Cocoa: compact and fast. they probably did Carbon because it's C++ friendly.

[Cyzor]

That's the word according to Richard Kerris, A|W tech director.
http://omnigroup.com/mailman/archive...ry/011182.html

Still, a Carbon Maya is better than no Maya at all.

[griffman]

Gametes -

If you like "lynx," try "links" for UNIX. I switched after one use; it's pretty darn slick! Here's a page (disclaimer: on my site) with instructions on where to find it and how to get it running:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...10129021502384

-rob.

[Gametes]

Rob, I'm using links now! It's pretty darn cool. I like the coloration like in BitchX, and I definetely appreciate autowrap. Incidentally, I've just been having problems viewing web pages with frames, so it's good that this browser supports them. How come, if this is so much better, is lynx popularized so much more?
However, and this is strange, I can't see what a cursor for where my insert point is. It makes it hard to review and edit my post. Any ideas?
I also can't submit a post to macnn in links. (!?). Macnn says that the forum name being submitted is not the same as the one in their records. Any ideas?
I miss Applespell in Omni, though

------------------
Just another Dock Pervert.

[CharlesS]

Cocoa is hardware-independent. Apple could make a version of the libraries for Windows, and it would work with not much more than a recompile, so you could easily develop cross-platform apps that would run a lot faster than Java apps. In that way, it's sort of like Java, but it tastes better! It's chocolatey. In the real world, I would rather have a cup of cocoa over java anyday. Java smells good but is pretty bland. Cocoa, on the other hand, tastes good, and it's better for you also, because it doesn't have as much caffeine! Which you won't need when writing for Cocoa, because you won't have to be up as late at night

You know, this might hint that they really do have a version of Cocoa for Windows in the works. Let's hope!

------------------
This web page is <blink>BLINK-FREE!</blink>

[pmcd]

Wonderful news. Finally the junk ports from Windows to the Mac will stop. Once a runtime YB for other platforms is established we can all look forward to great ports, except this time they will be going Mac to
platform X,Y,Z, etc.... If all we want are late, featureless windows' ports then perhaps we should all buy PC's or simply run VPC. What's the problem with having first rate apps which are Mac first?

Philip

Originally posted by Brass:
Actually cocoa does suck, and not just the name. I agree that it's a great API and developer model, however, it seems to me that it's not very portable.

I can't believe no one mentioned this...

Cocoa is not Apple's first project by that name. It was previously the name of a game-creation environment that was 'kind of' maintained for awhile, until it was finalled "Steved". (Think he killed it just to take its name? Possibly...)

Avi

[JB72]

Industrial Strength API?

Crystal Meth API? That implies alot. Is that too much?

How 'bout "Shotgun." I can see programers now, "Yeah, I only write for Shotgun. All that other stuff is for wimps."

I think we're on to something here.



------------------
JB71.338x

Dock Pervert? You bet your ascot I am!

How about Apple calls it the "mainline" API? Or they could call it the "Razorback" API. The "Snake bite" API. The "Magnum" API. The "Spinal Tap" API. Some young hotshot programmer, "Yeah, I write for TAP! Tap is bad-ass, but I'm getting promoted to work on Mainlining pretty soon. That even beats the Snake Bite!"

LOL, who cares what its called? Cocoa sounds pretty cool to me.

[JB72]

LOL. "I write for Tap."Classic. Snake Byte could be this agro API that's really only designed to code 3D shoot 'em up games. There could be a default instruction set that calls Altivec to create blood splatters.

------------------
JB71.338x

Dock Pervert? You bet your ascot I am!

[parallax]

Actually cocoa does suck, and not just the name. I agree that it's a great API and developer model, however, it seems to me that it's not very portable. I'm not developer so I could be wrong.

Not very portable? Hmmm?

Cocoa = OpenStep. OpenStep = GNUstep. (To some degree)

Cocoa = GNUstep.

Cocoa = Mac OS X.
GNUstep = UN*X.

The only one that's missing out is Windows.

Cocoa is easy to learn, easy to manipulate, and easy to create. You can get as low-level as you like, or as high-level as you like.

It can become *as* simple as HyperCard, or *as* complex as you could possibly dream of.

Cocoa is a great API, you just have to use it before making judgements.

And personally, I really don't want Apple's wonderful system being littered and corrupted by people that judge an API by its name. Orbit's correct: what about Java? More than a few developers take Java seriously, despite its name.

</rant>


[This message has been edited by parallax (edited 02-12-2001).]

[Alex Duffield]

If you make an app that uses bothe Cocoa and Java, would that make it a Mocha App???



------------------
Alex Duffield
------------------

*Compliments mr_SonicBlue

[pmcd]

Hear! Hear! Someone had to say it. I'm glad it was said so well. People should read your note very carefully.

Philip

Originally posted by parallax:
Not very portable? Hmmm?

Cocoa = OpenStep. OpenStep = GNUstep. (To some degree)

Cocoa = GNUstep.

Cocoa = Mac OS X.
GNUstep = UN*X.

The only one that's missing out is Windows.

Cocoa is easy to learn, easy to manipulate, and easy to create. You can get as low-level as you like, or as high-level as you like.

It can become *as* simple as HyperCard, or *as* complex as you could possibly dream of.

Cocoa is a great API, you just have to use it before making judgements.

And personally, I really don't want Apple's wonderful system being littered and corrupted by people that judge an API by its name. Orbit's correct: what about Java? More than a few developers take Java seriously, despite its name.

[kennethmac2000]

Why didn't Apple add C++ support in addition to Java support to Cocoa?

[Orbit]

C++ support *is* included in Cocoa... it can compile and run procedural C++ code, but its class structure is constructed in a way that makes it impossible to use OpenStep classes in C++. I don't see what the big deal is anyway... Objective C is much more elegant than C++ and it takes about a minute to learn if you already know another language. It's all just syntax... if you're a good programmer, syntax shouldn't be a stumbling block (unless of course you're using LISP)))))))

oops forgot a few...)))

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
Why didn't Apple add C++ support in addition to Java support to Cocoa?

I think it's because C++ has no dynamic run-time support (maybe I'm wrong). Cocoa requires the ability to have generic objects, being passed around in code, that aren't defined until the program is actually running.

------------------

[wadesworld]

I think it's because C++ has no dynamic run-time support (maybe I'm wrong). Cocoa requires the ability to have generic objects, being passed around in code, that aren't defined until the program is actually running.

You're correct.

Apple could create a C++ bridge like they did with Java, but it's really not worth the effort. Rather, what they're going to do is re-enable ObjC++ in the compiler, which gives you the ability to mix Obj C and C++. This allows you to keep the guts of your program in C++ and converting just the interface stuff to Obj C.

Wade

[gorgonzola]

According to an Darwin developer guy I heard at Omni's OS X dev list, Apple's working on Obj-C++ support. Not too sure what this is as relates to Obj-C and C++, maybe parallax or someone else can clarify.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[parallax]

The main problem of using C++ alone is its un-dynamic-ness (as mentioned above). Now I've heard that using separate .cpp and .m files together in the same program presents no problem, it's just getting them in the same file co-existing that's the trouble. There are several issues with ObjC++ that make it difficult to work with and update.

A pretty important issue: C++ is somewhat of a constantly evolving and it would be tough to update all the new standards directly into Objective-C++.
I think Apple's Objective-C++ compiler tried to directly compile ObjC and C++ natively.

Someone made this to compile the Objective-C part down to straight C, then compile the C and C++ code together (Alas, it is old and runs only on Windows :-) http://www.orcsoftware.com/~ronny/POC.html

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Cocoa/Obj-C, while a beautiful API for developing new GUI apps for the Mac, has 2 major flaws. The first is that it doesn't mix with C++ code well. All of my software is C++ based and is very portable to platforms with both C and C++ APIs. ObjC++ or whatever might solve that problem. The second problem is that the runtime engine for Obj-C incurs considerable overhead, making Obj-C faster than Java, but slower than C++. The runtime environment does make extensive use of caching to speed execution of repeated tasks, but is is just too slow for some things. Take a look at OmniWeb for example. The rendering and GUI code just can't compete with IE, even though the browser is much nicer. This might be due to lousy programming, but I doubt it. I think it's the Obj-C overhead.

Still, a Carbon Maya is better than no Maya at all

There is a myth being perpetrated in these forums that Carbon is somehow inferior to Cocoa. It is not. Both APIs are industrial strength. If you have problems with Carbon apps, it is probably because the developer has yet to fully update for X (the main sin is sitting around waiting for events). There's a big difference between getting an app to work on X and getting it to work right.

Anyway the primary advantage of Cocoa is the development environment itself. As has been noted here, it is almost trivially easy to pump out an app once you understand the process.

[adamtki]

They could've just kept the OpenStep name and just upped the version number. I thought it was a pretty lame name for an API set when I first heard it at the WWDC. Oh well, no use complaining since it's here to stay.

[Gee4orce]

Cocoa is a cool name.

Maybe you'd prefer to program in C# ? (supposedly 'see-sharp', but I prefer 'see-hash', as in 'made a hash of it').

[sadie]

How about the MP3 encoder: LAME. Worst name ever, but it seems popular because it's good.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by pmcd:
Wonderful news. Finally the junk ports from Windows to the Mac will stop. Once a runtime YB for other platforms is established we can all look forward to great ports, except this time they will be going Mac to
platform X,Y,Z, etc....

Don't hold your breath. Cocoa (as was pointed out) is a evolution of the OpenStep API which in turn evolved from NextStep. Its name was no coincidence, NeXT wanted it to be portable to different environments, from their own system to Win NT to Solaris. They reached this goal and it is one of the strengths of OpenStep (I work at a win-only shop and we do database modeling with some tools running on the OpenStep-on-WinNT library called YellowBox).

Cut. Some years later, Next is no more and OpenStep is Cocoa. The API got some great extensions and is now truely modern. But... what happened to the portability? Apple is silent on this and we will probably know by WWDC, but I venture a guess: it got steved. Apple does not have the resources to update it for windows - and Sun is no longer interested since some years.

So basically, a tool that could be used to develop cross-plattform apps got castrated. And my silent fear (bolstered because the new Finder is Carbon) is that Cocoa itself is going to die.

[naden]

Yeh but your forgetting that ..

Apple didn't take over Next .. Next took over Apple. There is enough Next people in key positions to somehow ensure that Cocoa will have a long lifetime. Not to mention that it is one of the most elegant programming environments available.

What I honestly believe will happen is a slow but sure progression from Objective-C to Java. I personally can't stand Java but a lot of people do like it, especially for back-end setups.

Too many people link Objective-C to Cocoa as though they are one and the same.

-- Naden

[Group51]

Originally posted by JB72:
Industrial Strength API?

How 'bout "Shotgun." I can see programers now, "Yeah, I only write for Shotgun. All that other stuff is for wimps."

Shogun is even better. How about Expresso. Latte?

[pdot]

I prefer the old BlueBox and Yellow Box names.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by parallax:
Not very portable? Hmmm?

Cocoa = OpenStep. OpenStep = GNUstep. (To some degree)

Cocoa = GNUstep.

Cocoa = Mac OS X.
GNUstep = UN*X.

The only one that's missing out is Windows.

GNUStep isn't really source compatible with Cocoa yet, and until it is I don't think many people will find it useful.
For Windows there used to be Yellow Box for Windows, which Apple developed (I think) for WebObjects deployment to NT. It has since been discontinued. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there were plans to move Cocoa frameworks to Classic Mac OS at some point, but I could be wrong. If someone did that then they'd surely make a HEAP of money.

Oh, and I think GNUStep can probalby run on Windows with a bit of tweaking (cygwin and so on... there's actually something for emulating the linux kernel on windows too hehe).

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by pdot:
I prefer the old BlueBox and Yellow Box names.

Me too! I really liked Blue Box, Yellow Box, and the fabled Red Box...

...alas, they too were lost long ago...

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[ReggieX]

Saying developers won't use an APU because of its name is like saying that I won't program in Objective-C because I hate Ayn Rand.

Reg

------------------
"A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a danish."
- Ty Webb, "Caddyshack"

[tie]

I think Cocoa sucks because it is so poorly documented. It's great that Apple included the Developer Tools with the retail OS, but too much of the documentation is unfinished.

Anyway, I think Java is a pretty cool name. The name Cocoa sounds a bit like a rip off and who drinks hot cocoa anyway?! (No, I couldn't care less what it's called but it matters to Apple for marketing purposes.)

[gorgonzola]

First of all, they're writing the documentation now. Takes a while.

Secondly, it's supposed to be a ripoff. The API originally only had Obj-C support, and they added Java support, hence Cocoa.

Corny, maybe, but logical.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything