On 31-Jul-04, at 11:54 AM, Jonathan Johnson wrote:
That's not correct. Almost everything Apple adds to its operating
system is exposed in both APIs. Both Charles Yeomans and I have made
declaring into Objective-C work, but we both faced the same dilemma:
what can you actually accomplish that you couldn't in Carbon? (Hence
the thread:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/listarchives/realbasic-nug/2004-07/
msg01400.html>)
There are basically very few items that aren't available in both APIs.
There are items that Cocoa users must use the Carbon framework for,
just as there are a few items that Carbon users must write Objective-C
wrappers for.
Although I may be new in this area of Carbon and Cocoa, past history
with Apple (and Microsoft) shows there will be a finite limit to
backwards compatibility in any area. This only makes sense as lifetimes
of computers are also limited as advances are made. Bad news for the
landfills however as recycling is not a priority in many areas. :-(
What might eventually emerge is anyones guess. It's sort of like the
past of many things. When the old 78 rpm Records were to upgraded, RCA
Victor had 45's and Columbia Records had 33 1/3's. RCA's 45 rpm disks
had better sound quality but Columbia's 33 1/3 rpm's won out on total
content per record.
<http://www.free-definition.com/Analogue-disc-record.html>
Same with Sony's Beta and JVC's VHS Video Tapes. Better quality vs.
longer tape times.
<http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-14/h1.html>
Now, who's going to win the OS Wars? ;-)
Or, will it eventually be a blend of all systems? As far as I'm
concerned, RS is headed in the right direction by encompassing, in
general, the three current major systems used today.
That's all for today,
Terry Ford
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|