Jump to content


Photo

leopards, binaries, and cocoas


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 danzac

danzac

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acadia Divinity College
  • Interests:NT, historical Jesus, DSS, NT Backgrounds

Posted 15 June 2007 - 08:19 PM

I've been reading some of the threads discussing Accordance on Leopard. I wonder if there is any more news on this front.

Also, one thing that peaked my interest during Jobs' keynote presentation at the recent WWDC was his presentation of the amount of Mac users who use Mac OS/X. It was something like only 2 million mac users run mac OS's older than Mac OS/X. This is a huge number of people running the latest OS - I know people who still run windows 95 on PC's!

All that to say, I immediately thought of Accordance because I know that Accordance has worked hard to maintain backwards compatibility. With these kinds of figures, is backwards compatibility even necessary? Does anyone actually run Accordance on pre OS/X machines? And does this re-raise the issue of rewriting in Cocoa?

Just some thoughts, I'd like to here from some others on the issue. One thing is for sure, I'd really like to see the universal binary of Accordance come soon.

#2 Helen Brown

Helen Brown

    Mithril

  • Admin
  • 8,506 posts
  • Twitter:accordancebible
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:heart in Israel
  • Accordance Version:11.x
  • Platforms:Mac OS X, Windows, iOS

Posted 15 June 2007 - 10:29 PM

We sent a developer to this week's World Wide Developer Conference, to help us keep abreast of all the latest developments at Apple. He's not back yet.

However, I must correct two common misapprehensions in your post. First, we have not "worked hard to maintain backwards compatibility." It takes almost no effort to compile our code for Classic. Second, while it is true that not many Classic users are still buying Mac software, we do have a growing number of Windows users with the BasiliskII emulator of OS 7.5. The fact that they can run the latest and greatest Accordance features and modules in Windows is a very important bridge to us. Many eventually switch to Mac, but others cannot, for whatever reason. Until Mac software runs seamlessly on Windows, we will continue to support this major segment of our users, especially significant among scholars.

And once again, a rewrite in Cocoa would halt all development of Accordance for several years, for peripheral gain at best. We are working on the Universal Binary, a massive project in itself, but not an entire rewrite. Please show a little confidence in our judgment of what is best for Accordance and our users.

It has taken me years to appreciate that constant nagging does little good, although a timely reminder is sometimes helpful. It takes wisdom to know the difference.
Helen Brown
OakTree Software

#3 countach

countach

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 June 2007 - 10:47 PM

Until Mac software runs seamlessly on Windows, we will continue to support this major segment of our users, especially significant among scholars.


In theory, a Cocoa application can run as a "native" Windows app (no emulator) by compiling against the compatible gnustep libraries, which derive from NextStep which are the same as Cocoa.

#4 danzac

danzac

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acadia Divinity College
  • Interests:NT, historical Jesus, DSS, NT Backgrounds

Posted 16 June 2007 - 07:07 AM

I think I've only mentioned the universal binary once, so I hope I'm not seen as a constant nagger :blink:

Thanks for the clarifications though. And I'm glad to here windows user use Accordance, I wasn't sure that would be the case with two major competitors on PC.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users