[Ham-Mac] OS X development

[David Anderson]

on 16/2/02 2:01 am, Sergei Ludanov at kd6cji@mac.com wrote:

> The one thing is right in this article is that Cocoa application will hav=
e
> less code to write for the same functionality compared to Carbon, besides
> Objective C is much more elegant than C++ as programming language and
> easier to learn. I just started programming on Mac (programmed PCs in C
> and C++ and mainframes in various languages) and I can tell that I have
> not seen better environment to work with than Cocoa. As for compatibility
> issue (can run Carbon on pre OS X machines), in a couple years the
> majority will run OS X anyway. Look at PC developers, nobody writes DOS
> and Windows 3.1 programs...

Have you seen and tried REALBasic though?  - One of the many points this
article made clear was how much easier and quicker it was to write an
application in RB than in objective-C.

The ability to compile for Mac=A0OS 8, Mac=A0OS 9, Mac OS X, and Windows 95
through Windows XP from one source is a key advantage.

As the article=20
(http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/about/Carbon_vs_Cocoa.html) states :

Is Cocoa Better than Carbon?
The short answer is no.

Can applications that use Cocoa do more things than applications that use
Carbon?
The short answer is no.

Are Cocoa-based applications "more native" than Carbon-based applications?
No.=20

Finally:

Don't just take our word for it, you can convince yourself. Download the
Objective-C tutorial (in which you create a currency calculator) from
Apple's web site. Now create the same currency calculator in REALbasic. Wit=
h
that exercise, you will convince yourself.

73

--
David Anderson GM4JJJ             <http://www.gm4jjj.co.uk>
    gm4jjj@amsat.org