Is Carbon a depricated API?

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by David Steu » Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:37:43

On another news group that I subscribe to, it has been asserted that
all new OS X applications should use Cocoa in preference to Carbon.
Is this true? If so, why?

I've also read that some of the new features in Tiger, eg Dashboard,
will only be accessible via the Cocoa API. The bottom line being that
Carbon will be allowed to bit rot over time while Cocoa becomes the
defacto only supported OS X API.

If all this is so, I would be rather sad. I like the Carbon API.

An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Marshall C » Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:29:07

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

It's a religious argument.

"Everyone should use XCode instead of CodeWarrior" is an equivalent
assertion. (or even "Everyone should use CodeWarrior").
[ Now I'll get flames... ]

This may or may not be true.

Some technologies (Webkit, say) are much better supported in Cocoa
then Carbon. Other technologies (InkWell, say) are better supported in
Carbon than Cocoa.

All in all, however, I'd say that a lot more is happening toda in
Cocoa than in Carbon, in spite of Apple's assurances that "Carbon is a
first-class citizen on Mac OS X".

You should investigate the technologies that you need for your apps,
and decide which toolkit fits your needs best.

How's that for an inconclusive answer? ;-)


Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Gregory We » Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:52:40

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

To answer the subject line: No. Carbon is not a deprecated API. It is
supported, live and growing. There remain certain tasks where the Carbon
solution is either more straightforward or, in a few cases, more
existent than the Cocoa solution.

That said:

Apple does seem to strongly recommend that Cocoa be preferred for new
development. Why? Because for a large amount of what a "typical" program
is going to do, Cocoa makes life easier and reduces the amount of code
you need to write. That tends to result in greater reliability and


There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Doc O'Lear » Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:22:12

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,


Because Cocoa takes care of a lot of stuff for you. Carbon will still
be around and functional as long as old apps, including Apple's, need
it. You're free to do new development in Carbon, but it's not the sane
thing to do.

I've seen no indication of that. If anything, Apple has been far too
supportive of Carbon/Core APIs. It took them forever to expose things
like the XML parser in Cocoa.

Tragic. If you ever to expose yourself you Cocoa, you'll realize that
Carbon was such a crappy API it's amazing Mac applications got developed
at all.

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Tom Harrin » Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:43:45

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

The person who said it must believe it to be true. There are arguments
on both sides, but ultimately the idea that Carbon is deprecated is not
supported by anything Apple has said publicly.

Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by David Steu » Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:20:48

Marshall Clow < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

Magic 8 ball says, "ask again later."

I really would hate to see Carbon left behind. I don't expect perfect
synchronization, but keeping Carbon seems like a good thing to me.

An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Paul » Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:45:29

Carbon is pretty limited compared to Cocoa, but it's lightyears ahead of the
original API (sort of like Star Trek The Next Generation: a better show but
just not the same to us 40-somethings who grew up on the original.) Carbon's
real hold on life is that it's similar enough to Windows that the important
companies are willing to use it, as opposed to Cocoa which is utterly Mac
only (GNUStep for Windows is nowhere near usable yet, and will never support
a lot of Apple technology anyway.)

If you're small and can accept that you'll never have a Windows version
without a complete rewrite, Cocoa may actually give you a commercial
advantage (faster development.)

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Doc O'Lear » Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:27:19

In article <dIb5e.2158$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

While the methodology of development might be similar, Carbon is hardly
similar enough to any Windows environment that *I've* seen to suggest it
as a selling point for Carbon.

I really hope you're not trying to argue that Carbon code is more
portable that Cocoa. GNUstep *does* provide a level of portability;
while not 100% complete, it's still 100% better than anything *I've*
seen that ports Carbon code to Windows. Unless you can back up your
statement with links to tools that get you to Windows from Carbon
"without a complete rewrite", I'm calling FUD.

Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Guid » Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:14:07

On 2005-04-06 16:37:43 +0200, David Steuber < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > said:

It's rather improbable. Spotlight and QuickTime will remain inherently
Carbon even if some Cocoa wrappers will be provided.


Is Carbon a depricated API?

Post by Simon Slav » Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:15:57>:

Did you have a point, or just Gnus and time on your hands ?

Why should Apple waste their time writing, debugging and supporting
Carbon shims to access every possible Cocoa function ? Of course,
there's nothing to stop you writing your own shims.

Using pre-release version of newsreader.
Please tell me if it does weird things.