I never bitched about there not being sufficient Objective-C++ support to make my "game thing", I disagreed with the point you made in your original post that "All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation", and with your assertion that there was no demand for Objective-C++.
"One of us is confused. I'm fairly certain it's not me."
Anyone genuinely in a position to discuss Apple's Objective-C++ support would have known that it already existed. As it stands, you clearly don't know what you're talking about and I've wasted enough time with this conversation.
"We measure demand by looking at the number of feature requests we get."
and
"Okay, well, obviously it's not vital, because nobody's asking for it. So, you know. There it is."
Objective C++ has been a part of Apple's developer tools since Puma. See here:
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/Cocoa/Ob je ctive-C++.html
(remove the Slashdot provided space)
That's why you're not receiving features requests for it - it's an existing feature that works.
But surely you should have known that.
As for your other point:
"Are you suggesting that you expected somebody from Apple to come knocking on your door and ask you what where we should go from here?"
Once you realise that Objective C++ is an existing feature then what I said makes sense - if Apple needed to gauge interest for it then it would publish a developer survey.
And that's exactly what I want to do, as stated in my original post, to quote myself:
"In the code base I'm currently porting to Cocoa, all of the application's core logic and data structures are written in C++, and the user-interface layer is written natively for each platform"
So I need Objective C++ to take advantage of Cocoa. All I've been trying to say all along is that you shouldn't assume there's no demand for Objective C++. I for one was never asked about Objective C++, and I consider it vital to continuing support for OS X. If people aren't communicating with Apple about Objective C++ then it's probably because it's just working in Xcode already, not because no one is using it.
OK, this has got to be a troll. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code for manipulating polygon models, brushes, curved surfaces and terrains, all rendered through an OpenGL graphics engine, cannot be rewritten in Cocoa in "a matter of hours," even if we were willing to drop cross platform support (and thus drop support for games consoles!)
Granted, if it was a Mac only editor then using Cocoa exclusively would be a nice option. But it's not - a Windows version of the editor is vital (we're talking about an editor that is released to the general public for game modding), so we don't even have Objective-C let alone Cocoa. Not to mention that the Windows editor already existed 3 years prior to starting the Cocoa version, so we're not starting from scratch!
Whether you choose to believe me or not, my point still stands - there are developers with existing C++ code bases but no investment on the Mac platform who want to write their UI in Cocoa.
And, as mentioned elsewhere, WebKit is a great example of Objective-C++ being used to provide access to an existing C++ codebase (KHTML) from Objective-C.
Actually, it's a great idea. It allows developers with an investment in C++ to write Cocoa applications. Most people I know who are using Objective-C++ are using it to access C++ libraries from within otherwise Objective-C apps. It's about getting real applications written when you have existing C++ code, it's not about language preference. For what it's worth, I'd rather use Objective-C.
"All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation."
No they're not! And I myself am not about to port hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ code to Objective-C since that'd eliminate the Windows version, which I can't do!
In the code base I'm currently porting to Cocoa, all of the application's core logic and data structures are written in C++, and the user-interface layer is written natively for each platform. So the Mac version gets a high-quality Cocoa front-end and Windows/Linux/BSD gets a wxWidgets front-end (since wxWidgets does a good job on those platforms).
Take away Objective-C++ (and therefore Cocoa C++) support and I'll just compile the wxWidgets version for the Mac since CoreFoundation is, as you say, a pain in the ass to use. The result: another low-quality "Windows-app-in-Aqua-clothing" Mac app.
Cross-platform toolkits, such as wxWidgets, SWT and Swing produce usable but low-quality Mac applications (missing sheets, drawers, collapsable toolbars, AppleScript support, and so on and so forth). Objective-C++ allows me to easily write high quality Aqua-compliant applications easily. So if Apple values Mac users it will keep supporting Objective-C++!
Not to mention that, for me at least, Cocoa/C++ is one of the reasons I use a Mac in the first place. I can produce professional user interfaces in no time and still know that I can port the core logic to Windows/Linux/BSD.
Oh, and I'm working in the games industry, where the majority of code is C++. I know for a fact that Apple wants more games code ported to OS X.
Just wondering outloud...
Apple patented a "rotary mouse" a few years ago. Could the rotary portion be the second button? So you'd have the mouse itself as the primary button and be able to click the rotary wheel for a context menu. That gives you a scroll wheel and context menus, without the rarely used third button.
Slashdot Mirror
I never bitched about there not being sufficient Objective-C++ support to make my "game thing", I disagreed with the point you made in your original post that "All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation", and with your assertion that there was no demand for Objective-C++.
"One of us is confused. I'm fairly certain it's not me."
Anyone genuinely in a position to discuss Apple's Objective-C++ support would have known that it already existed. As it stands, you clearly don't know what you're talking about and I've wasted enough time with this conversation.
Wait, wait, wait...
b je ctive-C++.html
"We measure demand by looking at the number of feature requests we get."
and
"Okay, well, obviously it's not vital, because nobody's asking for it. So, you know. There it is."
Objective C++ has been a part of Apple's developer tools since Puma. See here:
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/Cocoa/O
(remove the Slashdot provided space)
That's why you're not receiving features requests for it - it's an existing feature that works.
But surely you should have known that.
As for your other point:
"Are you suggesting that you expected somebody from Apple to come knocking on your door and ask you what where we should go from here?"
Once you realise that Objective C++ is an existing feature then what I said makes sense - if Apple needed to gauge interest for it then it would publish a developer survey.
And that's exactly what I want to do, as stated in my original post, to quote myself:
"In the code base I'm currently porting to Cocoa, all of the application's core logic and data structures are written in C++, and the user-interface layer is written natively for each platform"
So I need Objective C++ to take advantage of Cocoa. All I've been trying to say all along is that you shouldn't assume there's no demand for Objective C++. I for one was never asked about Objective C++, and I consider it vital to continuing support for OS X. If people aren't communicating with Apple about Objective C++ then it's probably because it's just working in Xcode already, not because no one is using it.
OK, this has got to be a troll. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code for manipulating polygon models, brushes, curved surfaces and terrains, all rendered through an OpenGL graphics engine, cannot be rewritten in Cocoa in "a matter of hours," even if we were willing to drop cross platform support (and thus drop support for games consoles!)
Granted, if it was a Mac only editor then using Cocoa exclusively would be a nice option. But it's not - a Windows version of the editor is vital (we're talking about an editor that is released to the general public for game modding), so we don't even have Objective-C let alone Cocoa. Not to mention that the Windows editor already existed 3 years prior to starting the Cocoa version, so we're not starting from scratch!
Whether you choose to believe me or not, my point still stands - there are developers with existing C++ code bases but no investment on the Mac platform who want to write their UI in Cocoa.
And, as mentioned elsewhere, WebKit is a great example of Objective-C++ being used to provide access to an existing C++ codebase (KHTML) from Objective-C.
Tools. Primarily, the level editor.
This link has two 18 month old game shots and an even older shot of the Windows version of the editor:
http://www.ikkiv.com/fz/
Actually, it's a great idea. It allows developers with an investment in C++ to write Cocoa applications. Most people I know who are using Objective-C++ are using it to access C++ libraries from within otherwise Objective-C apps. It's about getting real applications written when you have existing C++ code, it's not about language preference. For what it's worth, I'd rather use Objective-C.
"All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation."
No they're not! And I myself am not about to port hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ code to Objective-C since that'd eliminate the Windows version, which I can't do!
In the code base I'm currently porting to Cocoa, all of the application's core logic and data structures are written in C++, and the user-interface layer is written natively for each platform. So the Mac version gets a high-quality Cocoa front-end and Windows/Linux/BSD gets a wxWidgets front-end (since wxWidgets does a good job on those platforms).
Take away Objective-C++ (and therefore Cocoa C++) support and I'll just compile the wxWidgets version for the Mac since CoreFoundation is, as you say, a pain in the ass to use. The result: another low-quality "Windows-app-in-Aqua-clothing" Mac app.
Cross-platform toolkits, such as wxWidgets, SWT and Swing produce usable but low-quality Mac applications (missing sheets, drawers, collapsable toolbars, AppleScript support, and so on and so forth). Objective-C++ allows me to easily write high quality Aqua-compliant applications easily. So if Apple values Mac users it will keep supporting Objective-C++!
Not to mention that, for me at least, Cocoa/C++ is one of the reasons I use a Mac in the first place. I can produce professional user interfaces in no time and still know that I can port the core logic to Windows/Linux/BSD.
Oh, and I'm working in the games industry, where the majority of code is C++. I know for a fact that Apple wants more games code ported to OS X.
Just wondering outloud... Apple patented a "rotary mouse" a few years ago. Could the rotary portion be the second button? So you'd have the mouse itself as the primary button and be able to click the rotary wheel for a context menu. That gives you a scroll wheel and context menus, without the rarely used third button.