13 replies to this topic

[J A Miller]

I know this has been briefly discussed in the past but since it made a news site as well as the normal rumor sites, I thought you at Accordance might like to be aware of this.

According to various sources, OS X.6 will likely be Intel only and may "wrap everything in Cocoa—things that are currently only Carbon accessible will be no longer." This seems to be a reasonable rumor and was hinted at during last year's WWDC when 64-bit Carbon support was eliminated. The fact that this new OS may appear as soon as January, 2009, and the fact that previous posts in the forums indicate that recoding would take a long time for Accordance programmers, led me to post it here. I suppose we will find out soon enough.

[Helen Brown]

We will all be a lot wiser (I hope) on this score after the World Wide Developer Conference next week, which our entire team of programmers is attending. I think this shows our commitment to keep up with developments in Apple technology.

[J A Miller]

I am glad to hear this - though I have never doubted the commitment of Accordance "to keep up with developments in Apple technology." I merely found it interesting.

On a different note, I really appreciate the new face of the website. Much more aesthetic and easier to navigate, at least for me.

[Alistair]

This rumour has been roundly dismissed as unfounded speculation.

iPhone 2 and .mac revamp is where the smart money is.

We'll know for sure next week.

[R. Mansfield]

I doubt we'll ever see a "pure cocoa" OS X. Why? Because two of the largest OS X developers--Microsoft and Adobe--have no desire to re-write their Mac apps from the ground up.

[Joe Weaks]

This "rumor" is the result of how a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. This "pure-Cocoa" note is for developers, not users. It has to do with the fact that it will be possible for even some features associated with Carbon apps will have Cocoa wrappers such that Cocoa apps can use them. So now, instead of Cocoa developers being forced to use hybrid solutions to accomplish some things, they will be able to do everything they wanted to in Cocoa.

It has nothing to do with the notion that Carbon apps will no longer run on OS X.

In addition to prominent Adobe and Microsoft apps are written in Carbon, don't forget the same applies to some fundamental Apple apps, such as the Finder.

Edited by Joe Weaks, 04 June 2008 - 08:48 PM.

[countach]

Actually, Adobe is re-writing their apps, because they need 64bit for large file manipulation, and carbon is not 64bit.

The rumour that 10.6 will be all-64 bit only is interesting also, since Apple said they won't make Carbon 64bit.

[J A Miller]

Actually, Adobe is re-writing their apps, because they need 64bit for large file manipulation, and carbon is not 64bit.

The rumour that 10.6 will be all-64 bit only is interesting also, since Apple said they won't make Carbon 64bit.

Actually, based on input from a developer at the conference, PPC support is going to be dropped in Snow Leopard but there is no indication it will be 64-bit only (remember the 32-bit Core Duos?). I have heard nothing about Carbon being completely dropped but it does sound as if it will at least be "deprecated," i.e. on the way out. More can be read at the 20+ page thread at www.macrumors.com; although most of it is whining about the Intel only nature of 10.6.

[Nathan Parker]

I just looked at my copy of XCode 3.2 I've loaded onto Snow Leopard, and I'm not seeing any Carbon app frameworks in the starting points, and the 10.3.9 SDK is also gone. So is Accordance having to do some of their coding on Leopard?

BTW, now that the Finder has been re-written in Cocoa, and Adobe and Microsoft have both announced that they're beginning to rewrite some of their apps in Cocoa, I think it's time Accordance looks into the possibility of how and when it'll be time to re-write a Cocoa Accordance. It's seems as if the transition from Carbon to Cocoa has really kicked off with Snow Leopard. Accordance probably doesn't need to start programming now, but at least start planning the roadmap. Here's a few suggestions:

I think the ideal time to see a Cocoa Accordance is Accordance X (10). I think Accordance should produce a really full-featured Accordance 9, with enough features to make a lot of people happy. That'll keep some people happy if Accordance X does have to go Cocoa. Plus, it'll give people time to prepare for the transition (upgrade their Macs if they're on an OLD Mac and complete the switch if they're still using a PC). Accordance could even support Accordance 9 for a while for Carbon/Classic until the core majority of users jumped ship to X. It would ease that transition quite a bit.

While Accordance X should definitely have a great set of new features, more features would probably be visible in 9 than in X. Why? Accordance X should be built with "core innovation" in mind. Rewriting it under Cocoa, delivering a fresh, new Cocoa GUI, upgrading modules that need it to run faster, adding 64-Bit support, adding support for Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL, tweaking and refining the software so that it runs absolutely even more incredible. This is where Accordance taps into every piece of the new core technologies and delivers something more stunning than ever.

That way, Accordance has a great path to transition on, a great set of features in the next major release, and core innovation in Accordance X. Plus, maybe by then Accordance can release Accordance for the iPhone and release the most amazing Bible software ever seen on the iPhone. That would be about the ideal time to do it.

[Joe Weaks]

Nathan,
I can appreciate the spirit of suggestion and encouragement in your post, but it is also ridiculously naive, isn't it? I'm quite sure that you can feel very confident that the folks at Oak Tree think often and well about development plans, well beyond any encouragement to start thinking about it.
You said, "I think it's time Accordance looks into the possibility of how and when it'll be time to re-write a Cocoa Accordance."
Neither you nor I know what they're thinking about their code development, but you can be certain that they think about it more than you and I put together.
You post enough to know that you appreciate Accordance and its development. And kudos to you for that.

[Nathan Parker]

Nathan,
I can appreciate the spirit of suggestion and encouragement in your post, but it is also ridiculously naive, isn't it? I'm quite sure that you can feel very confident that the folks at Oak Tree think often and well about development plans, well beyond any encouragement to start thinking about it.
You said, "I think it's time Accordance looks into the possibility of how and when it'll be time to re-write a Cocoa Accordance."
Neither you nor I know what they're thinking about their code development, but you can be certain that they think about it more than you and I put together.
You post enough to know that you appreciate Accordance and its development. And kudos to you for that.

I certainly have full confidence in the Accordance developers to release updated versions of Accordance as they need to be updated. I was merely suggesting a logical development cycle to make the transition from Carbon to Cocoa. I know it's hard to imagine (no more Carbon in a Mac release), but Snow Leopard really showed us where the future's going with Apple. I think version X would be a safe place to make this huge, rewitten jump. Especially if version 9 is chock full enough features to make everyone happy, then the version X jump wouldn't be so painful. I'm just putting some logic together and throwing out some things for the developers to ponder. I'm sure they know more about the code than any of us, I'm just looking at version releases and timing to see what would be some good ways of marketing this when the inevitable happens.

[Ron Webber]

Hey guys. I don't care if Accordance is written in cocoa, carbon, or chipmunk basic. The fact is the folks at OakTree software have consistently given us the best and fastest Bible software application on the Mac or any other platform. I'm confident they will continue to do the same for years to come.

Regards gentlemen,

Ron

[Joe Weaks]

Hey guys. I don't care if Accordance is written in cocoa, carbon, or chipmunk basic.

Ah, good ole chipmunk basic. I remember coding in chipmunk basic like it was yesterday. But, it's demise was certain-- the limited API's, the restrictive architecture, the constant need for more and more gathering:

REPEAT while ( nest < full )
{
gather("%nuts and %acorns; nest);
if @squirrel; hide()
else if @hawk; run()
nest=nest+%result
}

[Helen Brown]

Thanks, guys, we'll put the chipmunks to work right away.