Here is a list of Carbon apps produced by Apple.
These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Move along, move along. Here are the AppleCocoaApps.
And who cares….? This is CocoaDev not CarbonDev
That what I was trying to say. Apple says not to write in Carbon, but their money-making apps are carbon.
If an app must still be available on OS 9, then Carbon is appropriate. Most, if not all, of these apps predate OS X. Even G
How do we know that G
Since when is G
I watched over fifty percent of the ADC sessions for 2002, and the general impression I got was Carbon developers are getting scraps in the way of UI. Carbon maybe programming “closer to the metal”, but there is nothing to prevent you from taking advantage of this C API when speed or low-level functionality is needed.
I personally prefer developing in Cocoa because I find it easier to reuse code written in Objective C.
*It seems the other way around to me. Carbon developers have placards and relevance bars (Cocoa doesn’t), and they got a brand new control framework with the H
Carbon and Cocoa both have features that the other doesn’t, and there’s no sign of that changing. Apparently it’s just a result of having two different teams working on them. And I checked - G
Why was the comment made that at least QuickTime Player isn’t Cocoa yet? There are a lot of things that I miss from Cocoa when using a Carbon app (when was the last time you checked spelling it iTunes?). Are there still people out there who think that Mac OS 9 is gonna make a comeback and want apps to be able to be ported back?
I think the meaning was that whoever said it wasn’t sure if it was Carbon, but [s]he was sure it wasn’t Cocoa.
Are there still people out there who think that Mac OS 9 is gonna make a comeback and want apps to be able to be ported back?
No, but Carbon & C/C++ makes dealing with multiple platforms a lot easier than Obj-C… C++ classes that hide implementation, easy as pie. IMHO, Apple dropping a procedural C API would be a mistake, every platform has one, and for a reason.
I heard somewhere that Pages is a Carbon app. Can anyone confirm/deny this?
No, Pages is definitely Cocoa.
Finder is still a Carbon app. This is an embarrassment. Couldn’t it have a Cocoa ‘face and use the Carbon where back-end necessary? No. Apple are too busy in consumerland, i.e., tuneland, to concern themselves with this doddering old fart of a program.
Actually, Finder was considered the “sacrificial lamb” that was in some ways a giant test bed to prove that Carbon provided enough functionality to write a complicated modern application with. And please don’t blame any bugs in the Finder on Carbon. The bugs it has are bugs in the overall design, not any problem with Carbon vs Cocoa.
Oooor they could just make it a good Carbon app, and not have to rewrite huge swaths of code for no reason. –DavidSmith
Oooor they can buy out CocoaTech and use PathFinder
The best apps will use the best solution. If something is done better in carbon, then use carbon. If something is done better in cocoa, then use cocoa. If the app does both these things, then use both. Simple as that. – Louis Klaassen