Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd Edition

Spencerian writes "Aaron Hillegass new book, Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd Edition, is a very helpful book for developers interested in getting not only their feet wet, but become totally immersed in creating applications using the OpenStep-derived API known now as Cocoa. Don't dive in without knowing how to swim in C++/Java, however." Read on for the rest of Spencer's review. Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd Edition author Aaron Hillegass pages 450 publisher Addison Wesley rating 9 reviewer Kevin H. Spencer ISBN 0321213149 summary Aaron Hillegass new book, Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd Edition, is a very helpful book for developers interested in getting not only their feet wet, but become totally immersed in creating applications using the OpenStep-derived API known now as Cocoa. Don't dive in without knowing how to swim in C++/Java, however.

The author is no stranger to OpenStep, having worked at NeXT as well as Apple in OpenStep application development and training. Currently, Hillegass teaches Cocoa programming for The Big Nerd Ranch.

Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd Edition is written in a way that makes you feel like you are in a class. There are prerequisites you must know and understand before you can begin, and, as a good professor would, the author points out what you need to have and know before beginning. Happily, the author is quite meticulous and has generously provided useful resource links and help where readers may explore for their supplies and primers and the like.

Essentially, anyone with a copy of Mac OS X 10.3 Panther has all that should be required--the Developer Tools CD contains all developer software and documentation necessary (the author notes in the book specific locations for key primers and references).

If you are experienced in C++ or Java programming, Cocoa development will seem familiar enough. Objective-C is used throughout the book (the author notes that development in Java is possible, but not recommended) for the various and numerous exercises. Cocoa development is made easier with Apple's Xcode application, however, Cocoa is not for the timid or novice programmer. This book is well-written and easy to follow IF you have a respectable level of C/C++ or Java development under your belt.

The text, as well as its diction, is easy on the eyes and mind, and while this is a programming book, the author's voice speaks well, allowing you to feel as if you can ask the book questions as if you were in a classroom. Graphics and text are plentiful, but information is not packed on every page, so following along is far from drudgery. Each chapter does stack itself on information from the previous, so this isn't a reference book in the strictest sense.

Addison-Wesley, the publisher, has formatted the book nicely, with a pleasant font that won't tire the eyes, consistent code and text conventions, and a detailed Table of Contents and Index, However, it's thickness and binding doesn't lend itself to lying flat, so you'll have to weight the book pages down to read the book hands-free as you type in examples. Speciality bindings that could have been useful for this book are not cheap, based on my publishing experience, and such a binding would add more to the book's $45 US cost. (Amazon has a great deal on the book at the time of this review.)

Five new chapters were added in this 2nd edition, which discuss creating AppleScriptable applications, integrating OpenGL, adding Undo abilities, creating reusable frameworks, and tinkering with GNUStep, the raw open-source tools for those curious about making Cocoa apps under Linux.

If you're a UNIX or Windows developer who picked up a Mac OS X machine recently in hopes of developing new apps or porting your apps to Mac users. this book should be strongly considered as one of your essential reference and training tomes.

You can purchase Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd Edition from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Mmmm... Cocoa

[skzbass]

in realated news Dutch cocoa maker Godiva comes out with a book on properly programming your microwave to make the perfect drink.

In case anyone is wondering..

[AKAImBatman]

...he mentioned Java because there's a Bridge mechanism in OS X that allows Java code to call ObjC code, and ObjC code to call Java code. I've used it myself and found it to be an effective way to write Java programs that are native to the OS X platform. Be warned, however. Differences in the way ObjC and Java handle objects causes quite a bugs. Not everything can be 100% mapped, so you'll find yourself writing some ObjC anyway.

Re:In case anyone is wondering..

[BasilBrush]

Presumably as few programmers have Objective C experience. At least if you know C++, you know the C parts of Objective C, and hopefully have some OOP experience.

Re:In case anyone is wondering..

[Abjifyicious]

Well, it is possible to mix Objective-C with C++ - the result being an abomination known as "Objective-C++" - but it's not something you typcially need to know about unless you're trying to do something weird, like use a C++ library from within an Objective-C program...

Re:In case anyone is wondering..

[mad.frog]

it's not something you typcially need to know about unless you're trying to do something weird, like use a C++ library from within an Objective-C program

What's so weird about this? Personally, I find Objective-C to be a problematic, weird language, with an unappealing syntax. I know Apple considers the dynamic binding to be a "feature", but I'm all about static type checking... hell, I'd add more rigid type checking to C++ if I could :-)

I vastly prefer to work in C++. No way do I want to use Objective-C more than I have to.

(For the record, I have written plenty of code in Objective-C, back in the pre-Apple NextStep days. So this is not a completely ignorant comment :-)

Differences from first edition

[tenuki]

How different is this one from the first edition?

Re:Differences from first edition

[skarth]

This version is written for Panther, and thus covers the new features of Cocoa that were introduced in Panther, such as bindings.

Re:Differences from first edition

[Roofus]

This one goes up to 11.

Re:Differences from first edition

[lacrymology.com]

"How different is this one from the first edition?"

Brushed Metal pages?

-m

Re:Differences from first edition

[for_usenet]

The chapter on GNUStep is also new. This is of interest to me, as I do a lot of work on Linux, but have been wanting to do some OS X coding as well. I've heard that GNUStep still has a "bit" of catching up to OS X's implementation of OpenStep. But with applications like GNUMail, maybe this isn't all hopeless, and might actually be useful.

Re:Differences from first edition

[Art Tatum]

I've been playing with GNUstep happily for quite some time now. And one thing you absolutely *have* to see (if you haven't already) is Renaissance. You define your GUI with an XML document (including targets, actions, and outlets) and it's automagically laid out on both OS X and GNUstep. This not only makes porting much easier, it will also make it much easier for your GUIs to adapt to foreign languages, the upcoming GNUstep theme support, and different end-user fonts.

It's still in development, and there isn't a graphical builder for it yet, but it's very promising.

Re:Differences from first edition

[shatfield]

I have both editions, and I have to say that the second edition content and writing are better.

He has incorporated 2 years worth of experiences from the teaching of the first edition at Big Nerd Ranch into this book... so it is little wonder that the second edition is better. He approached the book with the idea that "it'll be released when it is ready", and it shows. He didn't rush this out the door. You cannot find a better resource for Mac OS X programming than this author. I suggest reading anything he writes, if you are serious about programming the Mac.

As far as the content goes -- everything development (CodeWarrior aside...) in Panther is Xcode, not Project Builder -- and the second book reflects this. I had a terrible time implementing the first edition's projects in Xcode, because all of the screen shots were different -- even Interface Builder has changed quite a lot. If you are looking at both editions and do not have the first one, you won't regret getting the second one. If you have the first one, but have not started learning from it yet, you will want to skip it and get the second one. If you've already gone through the first one, the second one might help you dig more into Xcode, but the Xcode website might be all you need for that.

I hope this helps.

Other good books are...

[Space cowboy]

"Cocoa Applications" (excellent step-by-step guide) and "Learning Cocoa with objective C" (more focused on the language than the framework). These are both from O'Reilly and recommended by the ADC (Apple Developer Connection).

Simon

C++ is for the weak

[NeoGeo64]

Real men code everything in BASIC.

Re:C++ is for the weak

[lacrymology.com]

"Real men code everything in BASIC."

Well, you fail then... the correct answer was:

10 "Real men code everything in BASIC."
20 goto 10

-m

Re:C++ is for the weak

[lacrymology.com]

Whoops! I fail too! :p

I meant:

10 print "Real men code everything in BASIC."
20 goto 10

-m

I'll wait

[Bingo Foo]

I'll wait for the third edition: Protocol Handler Exploit Programming for Mac OS X.

Good Read!

[Capt.Gingi]

I've read several of the other Cocoa books out there and Aaron's is the only book that intelligently steps you through adopting this language and the design metaphors that Apple encourages you to adopt to build applications to best effect that leverage all the capabilities of the system foundations versus trying to do everything yourself.

The additions of covering bindings is just how to get around the new Xcode interface including the revamped Interface Builder makes this book a must read. Starting with any of the other books you'll be banging your head against the wall as what you see and what they describe in terms of many of the actions will not match the current tools.

Second Edition Errata

[bcolflesh]

http://www.bignerdranch.com/products/cocoa1.shtml

I'm . . .

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

kookoo for Cocoa Progs

BASIC is weak

[millahtime]

Real men code everything in assembly

Re:BASIC is weak

[nkh]

That's what Java is all about: you can be an assembly zealot and still be platform independant with the JVM opcodes ;)

Re:BASIC is weak

[Anonymous Coward]

0000000: 2052 6561 6c20 6d65 6e20 636f 6465 2065 Real men code e
0000010: 7665 7279 7468 696e 6720 696e 206d 6163 verything in mac
0000020: 6869 6e65 206c 616e 6775 6167 650d 0a00 hine language..

Good Tutorial

[druske]

I read through the first edition about a year ago, and found it to be an excellent hands-on tutorial, gradually walking the reader through the construction of increasingly complex apps. I came at the book from a strong C++ background and various Microsoft technologies, and zero experience with Mac software development, and left with a reasonable beginners knowledge of Objective-C and Cocoa. Supplement this tutorial with resources like Apple's reference material and the mindshare at the Cocoa developer list archives, and you'll be well on your way to developing your first Mac app.

I'm glad to see that the second edition added AppleScripting and material on implementing Undo, even if at the expense of the Java chapter. (No surprise, there: in the beginning of the first edition's Java chapter, Hillegass basically says this about programming Cocoa using Java: "DON'T.")

I'll be programming at....

[millahtime]

the cocoa, cocoa cabana....

THAT is an old story...

[argent]

From what I've heard Apple is taking this more seriously than Microsoft.

After all, this is the same basic design flaw that led me to ban IE and Outlook at work about ... jeeze... getting on for a decade ago, and that about nine out of ten email viruses and worms exploit, and that Microsoft not only refused to fix but spent five years in lawsuits with the justice department to defend... even though every other person in the security business was telling them it was a bad idea.

HEY, PEOPLE, DON'T USE THE SAME PROGRAMS AND HELPER APPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL DATA AND THE INHERENTLY UNTRUSTABLE INTERNET!

Sheesh. This isn't rocket science. Hopefully Apple has some rocket scientists and won't spend the next decade patching one hole after another.

Re:THAT is an old story...

[dasmegabyte]

I'd have to say you have a very skewed opinion of how programs work.

See, if you have to do something twice, you only write it once. Because if you had to write it twice, each version would be twice as buggy. Which in your case would mean twice as many exploits. It really isn't rocket science to see which is a better idea from a process management perspective. If you want stable code, you can't go writing a separate version of something just for use on the internet.

What you should do, however, is never make the assumption that what the program is being told to do is what the USER wants the program to do. This works for local exploits as well...like when your brother starts trying to screw around with the network settings. If your program is being asked to do something twitchy...like delete something, change a system setting, open a port, etc...then your program should require user input before doing so. It should never automatically execute anything that might be unsafe.

Which is where Apple's one step better than Windows. It asks you for your system password before mucking with the system. It asks for your system password before deleting system wide programs. It unpacks archives automatically, but doesn't run the files inside. And it can be made to ask for your user password before messing with your user settings.

Re:THAT is an old story...

[The Almighty Dave]

Sheesh. This isn't rocket science. Hopefully Apple has some rocket scientists and won't spend the next decade patching one hole after another.

I am having a hard time following your logic. If this isn't rocket science, why do you hope Apple has some rocket scientists? Wouldn't it be better to have someone who is not a rocket scientist to deal with problems that are not rocket science?

Re:THAT is an old story...

[Paradise Pete]

This isn't rocket science. Hopefully Apple has some rocket scientists

Well, if it isn't rocket science then what good would that do?

Re:THAT is an old story...

[argent]

No, you're missing the point. The problem isn't that this or that application is not secure, it's that there are readically different approaches that the high level part of an application has to take when it's dealing with untrusted objects. An application that is designed for an untrusted environment has to implement mandatory access control, what some people call a sandbox. An application that is designed for convenient use by the end-user in an environment where it doesn't have to deal with untrusted objects would be terribly cumbersome if it applied mandatory access control to everything. There are systems that apply MAC everywhere, what they call compartmentalised mode systems, and they're terribly difficult and unfriendly.

So applications like web browsers, mail software, media players, anything that implements a mechanism to access and display untrusted data, have completely different requirements from applications like Finder or Help Viewer. It is very difficult to design a single set of rules that can aply to both, even if you use "Zones" to separate them, because it's difficult to determine *what* zone something is supposed to be in.

That's how the "cross zone" exploits on Windows work, the typical example is to trick an application like Outlook into opening a document on the local disk that has been provided by the exploit script. It's local, so it's trusted, and bob's your uncle... the bad guy is in.

This is exactly the same problem these recent exploits on the Mac use.

The right fix is to have the application keep track of the history of an object and never let it at the "trusting applications" list. And to have applications that deal with untrusted data by default assume that everything they're dealing with is untrusted. In Microsoft's case, instead of having a single "internet explorer" application (actually the MS HTML Control) that you call with a file and have it figure out whether to trust it or not, you would have an IE application that handles access, and calls an HTML entity that only does display and goes back to the application for access. Apple has a different display model using PDF that doesn't do access, so they don't have that problem... all they need to do is split LaunchServices into a "for trusted data sources" and "for untrusted data sources" list. Applications that open remote documents use the "for untrusted data sources" list for references in those documents, and you ONLY put applications that expect untrusted data in that list.

There's little duplication, because there's very little duplication between what you want to do with trusted and untrusted data... and you would generally be able to make do with a wrapper.

As for the famous Apple "graphical SU", well, that's a good start. It's part of a security solution and I'm glad it's there... but it's nowhere near a panacaea for this situation. If I have local access on your machine I don't need to do *anything* to your system configuration to make your life just as miserable as if I were running as Administrator on a Windows box or root on Linux. I could send spam in your name, open up a back door that a bad guy could use to perform more sophisticated attacks, set a listener on your email, redirect your browser through my proxy, just about anything that doesn't require actual superuser access. And all it takes is *one* rogue executable to get it in.

This is not an attack on Apple... there is no way to build an OS that's suitable for a general user population to run arbitrary code on without opening up the possibility that someone might trick the user or the system into running an exploit. You wouldn't want to use a system that sandboxed everything, and neither would I. So don't be in such a hurry to defend Apple's honor... there's no dishonor here for them. It's Microsoft... who created the copreesponding hole in the mid '90s and refused to fix it even when required to under a court order that has egg on their face.

Assembly is weak

[dasmegabyte]

Real men don't care WHAT the real answer is...instead, they choose one at random and beat the shit out of anyone who disagrees.

Which is why true && false == true. What, you wanna start? BRING IT ON!

No xcode?

[tf23]

From this review it says that the book starts out with how to start a Cocoa application project with Project Builder

Where are the Xcode books???

I'd love to see a "more up to date" version of this that deals strictly with using Xcode. That seems to be the tool of choice for the OSX Cocoa developer's future.(imho)

Re:No xcode?

[clichekiller]

This book does use XCode, its a typo in the reviewers review. I've just started reading it and the first thing it has me do in the first example is fire up XCode so no worries there.

Re:No xcode?

[technomancerX]

You'll note the review you linked to is for the FIRST edition and this is about the SECOND edition. The second edition is revised for 10.3 which includes XCode. You can identify the second edition easily as it seems to have a scary bright yellow cover. Hit the B&N link under the review to see a photo

Re:No xcode?

[BasilBrush]

Is XCode really that different from Project Builder and associated apps that came before? I've got the first edition of this book, that I worked through with Jaguar. Would I need to get the second edition too if if I wanted to use Xcode, or are the differences fairly minimal?

MVC Shite!...

[tonywestonuk]

I'm a Java programmer, and used to program Mac's in the system 7 era. So, I thought I'd take a look at using the Cocoa API. There is a java-cocoa tutorial on apples developer site, so I fired up x-code / Gui Builder and jumped in.

After spending a good few hours understanding how to develop in this environment,I honestly think that the effort and pain needed to put together this simple currency converter app, is not worth it.... I could have done the same thing in any other environment (Swing/VB/ old Res-edit & Pascal), in minutes... What is the big deal surrounding MVC for a GUI?

Tell me, Can I make a dynamic screen, that adjusts itself based on the data inside it (AKA Java Swing).... What about creating reuseable, database linked components, that can be dropped into any screen in a line of code?

Re:MVC Shite!...

[golgafrincham]

geez, i'm not the only one cursing this pattern insanity nowadays.

What about creating reuseable, database linked components, that can be dropped into any screen in a line of code?

i also think that ides do make a difference (i'm trying to say that ides influence your way of coding and also your productivity. not to forget the fun). using eclipse for example is like using xwindows and, say, gnome. it takes some time until everything is configured well, but when it is, you do drop your db linked components into any frame without writing even a line of code. a company i once worked for was primilary doing frontends, mostly for databases. all widgets in the gui part are standard widgets, wrote once, wrapped in beans. so the only real work was creating a laf according to style guides and occasionally to modify some jdbc drivers for rare dbs. like oracle (man, "classes.zip" somehow works, but it is the worst jdbc driver i saw. and you have to pay much if you want their network protocol in order to write your own drivers. or you jad and sniff;)

it is also possible to ship complete ejb applications with a one (nearly one) click installer (just use the ant classes. their license allowes this and it's the best way to gain access to the os). every technology that wants to incorporate with java should not restrain that way of coding (that's the reason i use this language). cocoa does.

Re:MVC Shite!...

[jamesmrankinjr]

Tell me, Can I make a dynamic screen, that adjusts itself based on the data inside it (AKA Java Swing)....

Yuck. Gag. Barf. Retch.

First off, MVC is really not very controversial. Most developers accept that MVC design is a Best Practice for applications with a significant user interface.

Secondly, if you honestly prefer writing a ton of code to create a Swing GUI to drawing exactly what you want in IB and being done with it, you are a masochist. With bindings, it's even easier now to hook up the GUI to your model. And if you use a tool that generates the GUI code for you, you're justing putting the pain off a little bit. Sooner rather than later, you will need to dive into all that autogenerated code, and what you see won't be pretty.

Thirdly, yes, I'm sure you can do the Currency Converter app faster in VB. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE MORE EXPERIENCED IN VB! Maybe you can save a small amount of time writing Currency Converter in VB if you eschew MVC design, but that's just because Currency Converter is not a serious application. Write anything more complex, and a good MVC design will give you a huge advantage in development time and code quality. It's a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish.

What about creating reuseable, database linked components, that can be dropped into any screen in a line of code?

Apple owned the definitive technology in this space. It was called Enterprise Objects (it kind of still exists but only Java and only works with WebObjects). Apple apparently decided it gave them too much of a competitive advantage for enterprise development and were afraid it might lead to success in that market segment, so they dropped Cocoa support for it.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:MVC Shite!...

[shawnce]

I guess you don't understand very well how Apple's Interface Builder works or Cocoa (AppKit) in general. Interface Builder (IB) doesn't generate code (like most RAD tools do for other language/frameworks) it constructs real objects, connects those objects with each other and then archives that object graph to a file called a nib. Using IB you can test you interface without having to compile or building the application, simple use the live objects that you are working with (it has a test interface mode).

When your application runs the nib is loaded as needed and that object graph is unarchived.

You can implement rather complex GUIs without writing a single line of code yourself (more so now thanks to the contoller objects supported) and without any other tool generating code for you.

If you haven't really used Interface Builder and AppKit you should consider taking it for a serious spin... often their is no need to code your GUI by hand.

Also note that you can load a nib (with one or more views, etc.) and have its views inserted into the view hierarchy as needed and multiple times.

Re:MVC Shite!...

[Ilan Volow]

Right now, I'm developing a Java app in Cocoa. I vastly prefer it to Swing because every Swing UI builder I've ever used is clunky while Interface Builder is simply elegant. And the nice thing about Java is that is has a large number of classes for stuff like X509 certificates and regular expressions don't really have counterparts in Objective-C (or if they do, crappy third-party counterparts).

In regards to the dynamic sizing issue (if I understand the complaint correctly), you can have dynamically changing sizes. Open up an inspector for a control and select "Size" from the pop-up menu at the top. You should see a box within a box. Clicking on different areas of the box draws little springs--those springs represent in what ways the control is allowed to grow/shrink.

The biggest advantage of the MVC for a GUI, IMHO, is portability. While the UI/View for my Cocoa app will be mac-specific, the logic/model for the app is completely cross-platform. I could probably also make the controller code cross-platform by wrapping it for the system I'm porting to, especially if that system supports the MVC paradigm.

Re:MVC Shite!...

[Fermata]

Hmm...you must have skimmed through the tutorial without reading closely, since it *specifically* tells you that the Currency Converter is overdesigned to introduce the MVC concept:

"This design for Currency Converter is intended to illustrate a few points, and so may be overly designed for something so simple. It is quite possible to have the application's controller class, ConverterController, perform the computation and do without the Converter class. By adhering to the MVC paradigm in this tutorial, however, you will learn the fundamentals of good Cocoa design which will assist you greatly as you begin to work on more advanced projects."

Of course, a full justification of the MVC approach is beyond the scope of this reply!

Re:MVC Shite!...

[Archibald Buttle]

Firstly as other people have said there is no surprise in the fact that you could program a currency converter app in another environment. The two main reasons are that you are not yet familiar with XCode and Interface Builder (IB), and secondly that the Currency Converter example is overdesigned to demonstrate the principles behind MVC.

As for the dynamic screen that adjusts itself to the data inside it, of course you can do this. This has always been fairly easy to accomplish, but 10.3 adds a concept called "bindings" which builds on the MVC paradigm to allow UIs to automatically update whenever the underlying data model changes.

As for re-usable database linked components, of course you can do that too, and if you do it right you don't need to write any code to reuse them. WebObjects is designed to do that kind of stuff, although of course there's a license fee involved. There's a few other frameworks available to for this which interface with Cocoa.

Aaron Hillegass - a personal opinion

[anactofgod]

I was an consultant for Apple back in the heady days right after NeXT acquired Apple, when Jobs was Apple's "interim CEO" (the term "iCEO" hadn't been coined yet). I had the good fortune of taking a class taught by Aaron on advanced WebObjects programming.

He struck me then as someone that falls into the category as a "Big Brain", esp wrt to training/educating on software programming. And a super nice (and patient) guy, to boot.

I'm gonna pick up this book asap.

---anactofgod---

Re:Aaron Hillegass - a personal opinion

[Pixie_From_Hell]

He struck me then as someone that falls into the category as a "Big Brain", esp wrt to training/educating on software programming. And a super nice (and patient) guy, to boot.

I went to graduate school briefly with Aaron. (He left soon after he started to pursue his NeXt / Apple / Cocoa interests.) He was indeed a super nice guy; he helped me through first year differential geometry (and now I think of myself as a differential geometer).

Go Aaron!

I'm gonna pick up this book asap.

Alas, I'm not his target audience anymore. (No C, C++, or Mac for me.) But he is a good guy.

for those of you that like openstep & linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an openstep workalike for linux, they even have "Project Builder" and "Interface Builder".

GNUStep project

useful for getting your feet wet with Objective-C (pretty good) and the *step frameworks.

Oldie but goodie

[Anonymous Coward]

Real Programmers don't write specs -- users should consider themselves lucky to get any programs at all, and take what they get.

Real Programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Real Programmers don't write application programs, they program right down on the bare metal. Application programming is for feebs who can't do system programming.

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies. And Szechwan food. (Do not go to eat Szechwan food with a group of Real Programmers unless you are prepared to argue bitterly over the last spring roll.)

Real Programmers aren't scared of GOTOs... but they really prefer branches to absolute locations.

Real Programmers don't write COBOL. COBOL is for wimpy application programmers.

Real Programmers' programs never work right the first time. But if you throw them on the machine they can be patched into working in "only a few" 30-hour debugging sessions.

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If they are around at 9 AM, it's because they were up all night.

Real Programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC... after age twelve.

Real Programmers can take the scissors off the phone cord.

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.

Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and Real Programmers wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly spring up in the middle of the computer room.

Real Programmers don't do documentation. Documentation is for simps who can't figure out the listing.

Real Programmers don't write in PASCAL, or BLISS, or ADA, or any of those pinko computer science languages. Strong typing is for people with weak memories.

Good book, but

[ashpool7]

This book combined with "Learning Cocoa with Objective-C" and AppKiDo is invaluable for a novice Objective-C programmer.

However...

Complete knowledge of the AppKit and the Foundation is essential to writing good Cocoa programs (To a lesser extent CoreFoundation (horribly documented!) and Carbon). There are plenty of objects I found post-facto that would have made my life easier had I known they existed. I have yet to find a single book that does this well.

Currently, the best way to start developing (and gain the kit knowledge) in Cocoa is to read these two books and then just try and develop a program, all the while stopping and searching AppKiDo for useful objects that you think may exist.

NSController

[Ilan Volow]

Among the things he adds in the 2nd edition is a piece on NSController, a neat feature that saves you a ton of time you'd otherwise spend creating GUI glue code between your view and controller layers. He also includes some info on creating frameworks, which is kind of hard to come by in most mac programming books.

Re:Objective C, pshaw

[anactofgod]

Why don't you Google to answer your silly question on why NeXT (not Apple) chose Objective-C over C++.

You may as well as why ID chose NeXT and Objective-C over Windows and C++ to develop the original Quake engine.

But, to save you the effort of typing "Objective C versus C++" in a Google search field, I cut & paste a short paragraph out of an article (returned by said search) printed in the Linux Journal on Sept 13, 2003.

As for C#...Objective-C pre-date C# by decades. It was developed independently and comtemporaniously with C++.

---anactofgod---

An introduction to Objective-C for programmers familiar with C++ or any other OOP language.

It is a surprising fact that anyone studying GNUstep or the Cocoa Framework will notice they are nearly identical to the NEXTSTEP APIs that were defined ten years ago. A decade is an eternity in the software industry. If the framework (and its programming language--Objective C) came through untouched these past ten years, there must be something special about it. And Objective-C has done more than survive; some famous games including Quake and NuclearStrike were developed using Objective-C.

Why Should I Learn Objective-C?

Objective-C gives you the full power of a true object-oriented language with exactly one syntax addition to C and, unlike C++, about a dozen additional keywords.

Since Apple purchase Next for $400 million and Mac OS X ships with Objective-C, recycling NEXTSTEP (later called OpenStep), as well as the fact that GNUstep is delivering the rock-solid window-manager Window Maker, Objective-C is (rightly) getting more attention because it is more flexible than C++ at the cost of being slower.

In reality, Objective-C is Object C and is as close to Smalltalk as a compiled language can be. This is no surprise as Brad J. Cox added object-oriented, Smalltalk-80-based extensions to the C language.

So objective-C is a hybrid between Smalltalk and C. A string can be represented as a `char *' or as an object, whereas in Smalltalk everything is an object. As with Java (int, double,.. are no objects) this leads to faster performance.

In contrast, C++ traditionally is associated with the Simula 67 school of object-oriented programming. In C++, the static type of an object fixes what messages it can receive. In Objective-C the dynamic type of an object determines what messages it can receive. The Simula 67 format allows problems to be detected at compile time. The Smalltalk approach delays typing until runtime and therefore is more flexible.

A GNU version was written by Dennis Gladding in 1992 and then Richard Stallman took over the development. The current GNU version is derived from the version written by Kresten Thorup when he was a still a university student in 1993. He ported that version to the NeXTcube and joined NeXT.

Apple chose Objective-C for Cocoa, as NEXTSTEP was based on Objective-C. But, even if they had written it from scratch, they might have decided to use Objective-C because it is object-oriented, which is undoubtedly a must for big software projects. It extends the standard ANSI C, so that existing C programs can be adapted to use the frameworks, and programmers can chose when to stick to procedural programming and when to go the object-oriented way. C was intended to be a good language for system programming. C is fine as it allows the programmer to do exactly what she wants, all the way down to the hardware. C also keeps the gold old pointers, which can be used for efficient code.

Objective-C is simple, unambiguous and easy to learn. But most of all, it is the most dynamic language of all object-oriented languages based on C. Its dynamic late binding offers flexibility and power. Messages are not constrained by either the class of the receiver or the method selector, allowing rapid change and offering access to information about running applications.

The following i

Re:Same for GnuStep it seems...

[Art Tatum]

I wonder how long he spent looking at it. The GNUstep-base (Foundation) reached 1.0 a long, long, long time ago (currently at 1.9.1) and is stable and featureful on both UNIX and Windows. GNUstep-gui (AppKit) is at 0.9.2 and is also very stable and useful on UNIX, getting there on Windows.

GNUstep has very fine InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder clones, a quickly growing number of excellent end-user applications.

Also, it seems to me that the install is *not* difficult. Granted, I've been working with it for a long time, so maybe I'm just used to it. And I'm sure Hillegass wasn't used to dealing with Linux (or BSD, or Solaris, or whatever he tried to install it on).

But considering the very small number of people working on the GNUstep core, I'm amazed at the quality and completeness of the project.

yum

[SKPhoton]

Ah, so they have Java and Cocoa now, eh? In that case, I have just one question for you:

Cream or sugar?

Another OBG - Klingon SW Quality Assurance

[anactofgod]

* Perhaps today is a good day to die... I say we ship it."

* Specifications are for the weak and timid!!

* This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium (!) processors if I am to do battle with this code.

* You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.

* Indentation?! I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!

* What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake!

* Klingon function calls do not have "parameters" - they have "arguments"- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

* Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.

* I have challenged the entire Quality Assurance team to a Bat-Leh contest! They will not concern us again.

* A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code.

* By filing this bug report you have challenged the honor of my family. Prepare to die!

* You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!

* Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!

(sources too numerous to attribute)

---anactofgod---

Re:Another OBG - Klingon SW Quality Assurance

[jcr]

Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't hire anyone who shows up for an interview wearing a klingon insignia.

-jcr

Re:Another OBG - Klingon SW Quality Assurance

[jcr]

I'll release ObjC when I'm done with it. That's not going to be anytime this year.

-jcr

Reference

[Ann Coulter]

I perfer Cocoa Programming by Scott Anguish. It is a great Cocoa book as it describes many aspects of Cocoa, not just making a GUI like most books I've seen. It describes the philosophy, principles, design, and even implementation of Cocoa. It is more in-depth than any Cocoa book I've seen. It is the only Cocoa book I know of that contains more than 1000 pages. And as for value, it is an invaluable reference to any Cocoa programmer and the cost is not much either as you can find it in some outlet book stores for about twenty dollars. I would certainly recommend Cocoa Programming to anyone interested in developing for the Macintosh OS Ten.

Re:Reference

[jcr]

Actually, that book is by Scott Anguish, Erik Buck, and Don Yacktman. I'd recommend it in addition to, but not instead of Aaron's book. The two books have entirely different purposes.

Aaron's book is the text that he wrote for his one-week course. Anguish, Buck & Yacktman's book is more of a comprehensive reference, with a great deal of material on style and techniques that just can't be covered in an introductory text.

-jcr

Re:Objective C, pshaw

[Jeremy Erwin]

Because NextStep has always used Objective C.

The most striking difference is the message passing syntax. For instance, if "hello world" is a string,

mystring.substring(2,5);

returns "llo w" as a new C++ string, while

[mystring substringWithRange:NSMakeRange(2,5)]; returns the same content as a Objective C NSString. (NSMakeRange is a C convenience function)

Here's some code that interates through a C++ vector, invoking a method on each member.
<ecode>
for(myvectortype::iterator pos=myvector.begin(); pos !=mvector.end(); pos++)
{
pos->do_something();
}

or, more simply

for_each(myvector.begin, myvector.end(), do_something());

In Objective C, the NSArray colllection class is similar

NSEnumerator *enumerator = [myArray objectEnumerator];
id object;

while (object = [enumerator nextObject]) {
[object doSomething];
}

similarly, there's the more concise method:

makeObjectsPerformSelector:@selector(doSomething);

Objective C is also a dynamically typed language, which makes GUIs somewhat easier to write.

Moderated funny?

[NSAnonymousCoward]

Are the food jokes about Cocoa (and Java) really still amusing? Or were they ever? There's enough derivative/inflamatory crap on this site without having skim over peoples lame-ass regurgitated humor...

Better "dive in" well before...

[macserv]

... you get screwed up by C++.

Well, OK, not screwed up, but C++ experience should not be considered a good background for learning Objective-C Cocoa. Its approach to programming with "objects" is very different, and the transition to Objective-C, IMHO, leads to a mix of techniques that is hell to read/debug, making for buggy Cocoa apps. If you're a C++ vet, it may be a good idea to unlearn a lot of what you know, and assimilate the conventions of the seasoned Objective-C coders.

That said, even though C++ may not give you a good start for Objective-C development, it can still be very beneficial to leverage C++'s speed in various parts of your application. You can, for example, build your engine from C++, and your widgetry in Objective-C Cocoa.

A strong Java background makes for a fairly easy to transition into Cocoa, trading in a few conveniences for greater flexibility, more mature classes, and easy GUI development. Java is quite similar to Objective-C and both can be used/mixed to build Cocoa applications (most don't though).

If you're a C jockey, Objective-C is like adding a new weapon to your arsenal. Objective-C is a superset of C. Those who are fluent in the design patterns of both languages will get the most from their Cocoa applications. Indeed, the ability to (fairly) freely intermix C, Objective-C and C++ is a great advantage, allowing you to use the tool that's right for the job.

As a switcher from any language, one of the biggest hurdles can be getting some fundamental OO design patterns down, which are expected by most of the Cocoa API. For example, you can't go one step in learning Objective-C without being taught the MVC (Model-View-Controller) paradigm. In contrast, a great many mature Java/C++ developers have never learned, or even heard of, this concept.

Just some observations... YMMV.

Re:Better "dive in" well before...

[Jeremy Erwin]

One thing that still bothers me is that it's difficult if not impossible to use templates with Objective C++, which negates some of the more recent advances of the C++ standard.

A few addenda

[buckhead_buddy]

I think Spencerian probably answers 90% of the questions most people have about this book: author qualification, tools required, prequisite expertise required, and changes from the original. I won't get involved in the flame wars about Objective-C versus Java and Mac OS X versus GnuStep, but I do have some additional comments (maybe better stated as additional opinions).

Tools:
You must have Panther (10.3) or later to use this book. It was possible to read the first edition (written for 10.1) and make some mental leaps forward, but the reverse is impossible. Besides the differentces between XCode and the GUI screenshots, Apple deprecated a number of methods (like takeValue:forKey:) in favor of much cleaner names (e.g. setValue:forKey:). Aaron doesn't mention the deprecated names (quite rightly IMHO) so that will make the Jaguar programmer have to refer to Apple's website to do the translation back to the older APIs. You may need to do mental exercises like that when you have to read someone elses code or when you're back porting your app, but if you're still learning, be sure to get Panther before trying to use this book.

Presentation:
Many of the books screenshots look much cleaner than the prior version. I think that's mainly attributable to Apple deciding to tone down much of the visual clutter in the Aqua theme. The lack of the pinstripes in windows and menus really makes the documentation much easier on the eyes. The change is really much more dramatic and makes for a much more readable book.

If You Read the First Edition:
I've read the first edition, and I have to say that I got impatient with much of the earlier portions of the book. I wanted the examples for Bindings and other new additions to Cocoa. I was already comfortable with the trivial examples in the early chapters, so it was hard to force myself to go back and really read and work through them. Do it. I remember most of the big points made, but some of the subtler points make more sense now. Whether these were in the last edition, I'm not certain but it was still good a good review.

Applicability to a New Programmer:
I'll underscore that this isn't for a new programmer. If you are new to C, I'd suggest reading the non-GUI text "Programming in Objective-C" by Stephen G. Kochan. An extensive background in object-oriented programming isn't as necessary (and in fact may be detrimental if your background is multiple inhereitance of the C++ world). But it does include some tips and advice on good OO techniques that Objective-C programmers use. You won't see any explanation on pointer tricks, handles, NULL, or many of the other plain C conventions. If you are a strong Unix programmer, you may feel more comfortable reading the Aaron Hillegass and Mark Dalrymple's "Core Mac OS X and Unix Programming" first. That book is billed as the sequel to this one (and it does use a little bit of Objective-C code), but it probably addresses your interests far more than this Application-centric book does.

The lessons of this book are quite worthwhile to certain audiences, but finding whether you are a target for it's wisdom may be tricky. Don't get frustrated. If you find it to be over your head, read another intro book but I'd definitely come back to this one at some point in the future.

Don't really need to know C++ nor Java...

[Whatchamacallit]

One does not really need to know C++ nor Java as Objective-C is really ANSI C + Smalltalk extensions. Obj-C on it's own is really rather simple. It's much easier and some may argue more powerful then Java or C++.

What this book does is introduce you to the Cocoa API and the Apple Dev Tools XCode & Interface Builder. The first edition was a blast and I plan on picking up the second edition in the near future.

If you are coming from a C++ background and you like it, you should study Carbon and not Cocoa at first. You can call Cocoa objects from Carbon and visa versa though. New projects should probably be written in Cocoa. Older projects written in C++ can be ported to Carbon easily. C programs can be ported to Cocoa and Java programs should probably stay Java or be ported to the WebObjects frameworks if it's a web based solution. You can write Java apps using the Cocoa API but it then becomes locked into the OS X platform as the Cocoa API (for Java) is not available on other platforms (maybe GNUStep but it's not all the way there yet) Note, you can run Tomcat and JBoss on OS X!

The NeXTStep / OpenStep / Cocoa API is rather advanced and can take some getting used to... i.e. you will have a rather steep learning curve to absorb it all and understand the best practices. This book is a great introduction and will get one up to speed quickly.

I found Interface Builder to be the most difficult part of the development process. This was because I had to unlearn all the preconceived crap in my head that I learned from other GUI interface tools. It turns out IB is much more advanced then anything I've ever used before because it builds live objects and not just GUI code. It then archives these objects into NIB files which are automatically unarchived by a Cocoa application. You literally build objects graphically and then interconnect them to each other and your Obj-C classes and instances. WebObjects does the same thing but with Java. It's a really slick development tool and once you start to understand it, the light turns on and you can see the possibilities.

Total newbies should probably pick up the "Programming in Objective-C" by Stephen Kochan. This book covers just the underlying Obj-C language and the Core Foundation (NeXStep/OpenStep/GNUStep/Cocoa) API. Programming in Objective-C does not cover the GUI portion of Cocoa programming. I just finished it and it managed to bootstrap my understanding quite a bit.

Re:Cocoa or Carbon? Daddy or Chips?

[davidcake]

I've taken a look at the same problem recently.
My feeling is that while Cocoa is a better choice for developing Mac OS X specific stuff, Carbon may end up being more similar to other platforms, and so possibly a bit easier for this specific use. Cocoa is still very doable for the same problem - but essentially, I suspect many C++ methods would just end up being a call to an equivalent Cocoa method (though often one you've written yourself). Mixing C and C++ is not particularly ugly or hackish in most cases. You can more of less mix the two syntaxes easily enough with Apples Objective-C++ support.

It kind of depends on your specific libraries, though. If your libraries are such that your objects correspond fairly closely to Cocoas, you might be better off using Cocoa.

The real value of Objective-C lies in its dynamic nature, which if you were writing a cross-platform C++ library you might not be able to make much effective use of.

I wouldn't worry that Carbon is being phased out, or that there will be new shiny functionality only accessible from Cocoa. In my experience thats not really the case at all. There is definitely functionality only accessible from Carbon (and lots of it) and Carbon is quite well supported. A lot of non-GUI Cocoa stuff (FoundationKit) is more or less duplicated with CoreFoundation (which is a straight C interface, accessible from both and interoperable with corresponding Cocoa classes). Lots of important apps are written in Carbon. Carbon works well with interface builder (you end up writing a LOT of event handlers, but they are straightforward).