Article:		Cocoa Vs. Carbon?
Subject:		RE: I thought carbon would be the interim API ..
Date:		2001-05-23 14:01:33
From:		duncan
Response to: RE: I thought carbon would be the interim API ..
I buy the argument that the Finder was written in Carbon in order to eat the Carbon dog food and to shake out the OS X implementation of Carbon. However, I still stand behind my statement that they wouldn't have engineered a critical piece of OS X in Carbon if it were an interim API and doomed to go away. We are probably going to be using this Finder for a while. I'm actually a bit bummed by the Finder being in Carbon and probably remaining that way for a while. It would make a lot of sense for Cocoa services to be exposed to items in the Finder. Quick encryption and signing of files comes to mind. Of course maybe Apple will provide a way for that to happen. As to Apple jettisoning one or the other: I don't see it happening. If anything, I think that the reuse under the covers of Carbon and Cocoa will only continue to improve.

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

• RE: I thought carbon would be the interim API ..
  2001-05-24 05:56:21  Daniel H. Steinberg | [Reply | View]
  
  
  In the session on wrapping Mac OS X APIs in JavaBeans, the speech recognition and synthesis were shown sitting on top of Carbon. I think James' article and the resulting threads show that Apple needs to explain this dichotomy a little better. Check out the interview on the site with OMNI -- they were pretty critical of developers who created new apps in Carbon not Cocoa.