Excuse me, but did I say anywhere that I'm complaining that AMD's advertising their speeds higher? I think it's brilliant! And I knew damn well when I bought my 2400+ that it was only 2 GHz. I really hate it when anonymous nerds like you come in here and say this stupid crap that makes no sense. I was simply making a small point that AMD and Apple have a similarity, since an Athlon and a G4 were compared. Why don't you waste your time insulting other people's posts that really deserve it?
Perhaps you should ask AMD; that Athlon XP 1600+ really runs at 1.4 GHz, you know. AMD seems to be in a similar boat as Apple with the clock speed myths.
And, AMD has done a pretty good job at disguising the real clock speed. I bought an Athlon 2400+ not too long ago. I couldn't find the real clock speed anywhere on the package, until suddenly a small note in a really tiny font size near the UPC label said: Operates at 2000 MHz.
This is really an opinionated question, so it's hard to get a "real" answer. But I feel that a common misconception is that Cocoa is better than Carbon and Cocoa is phasing Carbon out. I think Carbon is going to be around a long long time. I hear people saying "oh, Carbon isn't gonna be with us in two years". Then I remind them that Apple's own Finder app is Carbon. Most of the major Mac apps are Carbon, too (Photoshop, BBEdit, Microsoft Word, etc). At least in earlier versions of the OS, (not sure about now) Cocoa actually used Carbon for many of its functions!
My personal opinion is that both environments have their own advantages. There are a few things like Gestalt that are really handy in Carbon. Cocoa makes it a lot easier to create an app (sometimes this can be viewed as a disadvantage), and is generally easier to learn for newcomers. Some of these gaps will probably close; others will not change.
Some Cocoa projects of mine have used or do use Carbon for certain purposes. Up until recently, the "chasing arrows" or now the spinning gearwheel indicator was only available through Carbon. In 10.2, it's available with Cocoa too. Also, Gestalt. Plus, Carbon has some Apple Event APIs that aren't available in Cocoa. This is just to name a few.
So, essentially, they are both as good as each other. If you've had previous experience with the OS 9 and below toolbox, go for Carbon. If you're new to OS X programming, I'd recommend Cocoa. Cocoa also gives you a lot more free stuff that takes more work to add in Carbon, like Services and spell-checking. When I tried to learn the Mac toolbox a few years ago, I was very confused, and Cocoa seemed to fit right with me. But now that Carbon exists, there are probably better tutorials and books out to help teach it. It's really up to you and your preferences.
Here's a link with more info on Carbon vs. Cocoa:
http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000024.php
Again, this is just my opinion - there's no right answer, IMO. Hope this helps.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but did I say anywhere that I'm complaining that AMD's advertising their speeds higher? I think it's brilliant! And I knew damn well when I bought my 2400+ that it was only 2 GHz. I really hate it when anonymous nerds like you come in here and say this stupid crap that makes no sense. I was simply making a small point that AMD and Apple have a similarity, since an Athlon and a G4 were compared. Why don't you waste your time insulting other people's posts that really deserve it?
Perhaps you should ask AMD; that Athlon XP 1600+ really runs at 1.4 GHz, you know. AMD seems to be in a similar boat as Apple with the clock speed myths.
And, AMD has done a pretty good job at disguising the real clock speed. I bought an Athlon 2400+ not too long ago. I couldn't find the real clock speed anywhere on the package, until suddenly a small note in a really tiny font size near the UPC label said: Operates at 2000 MHz.
This is really an opinionated question, so it's hard to get a "real" answer. But I feel that a common misconception is that Cocoa is better than Carbon and Cocoa is phasing Carbon out. I think Carbon is going to be around a long long time. I hear people saying "oh, Carbon isn't gonna be with us in two years". Then I remind them that Apple's own Finder app is Carbon. Most of the major Mac apps are Carbon, too (Photoshop, BBEdit, Microsoft Word, etc). At least in earlier versions of the OS, (not sure about now) Cocoa actually used Carbon for many of its functions!
:)
My personal opinion is that both environments have their own advantages. There are a few things like Gestalt that are really handy in Carbon. Cocoa makes it a lot easier to create an app (sometimes this can be viewed as a disadvantage), and is generally easier to learn for newcomers. Some of these gaps will probably close; others will not change.
Some Cocoa projects of mine have used or do use Carbon for certain purposes. Up until recently, the "chasing arrows" or now the spinning gearwheel indicator was only available through Carbon. In 10.2, it's available with Cocoa too. Also, Gestalt. Plus, Carbon has some Apple Event APIs that aren't available in Cocoa. This is just to name a few.
So, essentially, they are both as good as each other. If you've had previous experience with the OS 9 and below toolbox, go for Carbon. If you're new to OS X programming, I'd recommend Cocoa. Cocoa also gives you a lot more free stuff that takes more work to add in Carbon, like Services and spell-checking. When I tried to learn the Mac toolbox a few years ago, I was very confused, and Cocoa seemed to fit right with me. But now that Carbon exists, there are probably better tutorials and books out to help teach it. It's really up to you and your preferences.
Here's a link with more info on Carbon vs. Cocoa:
http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000024.php
Again, this is just my opinion - there's no right answer, IMO. Hope this helps.