On Nov 1, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
Do you really mean this? As far as I've heard, Apple's official stance has never been to classify Carbon as a legacy technology (though they've certainly taken all the steps). Can we finally settle this issue and start calling things as they are?
I'm calling it legacy because of the definition of "legacy" and not because of any official policy on anyone's part.
Definition of "legacy": "denoting software or hardware that has been superseded but is difficult to replace because of its wide use".
All of the currently shipping Macs are 64 bit, "64 bit" shows up as a focus for Snow Leopard here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/ snowleopard/), and Carbon is not supporting 64 bit. And, if you look at the history of Mac OS X Leopard and Tiger, Carbon has been maintained, but not advanced. New technologies are generally presented as Objective-C or CoreFoundation based APIs.
To me, that seems kinda legacy like.Of course, I also call the 32 bit Mac OS X Objective-C ABI "legacy". And the 64 bit and OS X Touch Objective-C 2.0 ABI "modern".
The point of all of this is that, if you are developing a new Mac OS X application today, including porting an application from some other platform to Mac OS X, starting by creating a "New Cocoa Application", "New Cocoa Document Based Application" or one of the Core Data new applications is more appropriate than any of the Carbon projects.
b.bum
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
