Thanks Everybody, for straightening me out on this issue. Now that I understand better the differences between Carbon & Cocoa, I see that they are both strong players, with some different attributes. It's really amazing the amount of misleading, or even blatantly incorrect info easily available on this topic. I'll not blame the Carbon API for poor performance again.
Thanks especially to Lane, who took the time to explain the differences in detail. > they both use exactly the same multithreading code, >although each has a unique API (due to Objective C in Cocoa). > >There are only two real differences between each: > >1. Cocoa must be programmed in Objective C whereas Carbon can use >Objective C, C, C++, Objective C++, Fortran, Cobol, etc. > >2. Some API's are only available to either Cocoa or Carbon. > >A Carbon program can mix Cocoa and Carbon API's at will, and Mac OS X is >a mixture of both, but mostly it's Carbon (example; the Finder, iTunes, >iMovie, etc.) snip >A bunch of FUD; a change to the OS to 64Bit that doesn't cause >applications to be recompiled benefits EVERY application, no matter what >API was used. A change that requires recompilation requires recompilation >no matter what API was used. > >>Cocoa is just vastly more portable. > >I just wanted to comment on this specifically; "more portable"? Cocoa is >the LEAST portable API in existence! Code written for the Sony Play >Station 2 is more portable than Cocoa! Lane also pointed out that any "stalling" I feel in PowerMail is not due to it being a Carbon app, but that PM doesn't have some code threaded as it could. Further observation on my part seems to indicate that Retrospect 6 can cause PowerMail to stall when both are active. I notice this usually when Retrospect is waiting for a new dvd or tape, sometimes when it is organizing" just prior to beginning to write out data, and sometimes just as the dvdr disk spins up. Okeey Dokeey! Next subject! :-) Best, Dave Nathanson Mac Medix
