> How can I write portable versions of Mac OS X apps when > the Cocoa API doesn't exist outside of Mac OS X
You could write your app in REALbasic and compile it as a native Mac app.
Then click a check box and compile it as a native Windows app.
Then click a check box and compile it as a native Linux app.
> Besides that, apps that aren't able to take advantave of the > underlying platform's unique features aren't sellable.
The Mac version of your app can have metal windows, drawers, sheets, AppleEvents, etc. The Windows version can access the Registry, System Tray, ActiveX, etc. Some of this is handled automatically, others require a little bit of conditional coding.
Heck, you can still do your development on the Mac and cross-compile to Linux and Windows. Or just get the free version for Linux and develop for Linux on Linux.
> If... balh, blah blah... Java apps look and feel just like > normal mac applications.
First of all the article is about NeoOffiice/J, which is a Java app running Mac OS X. And it looks like crap. I have no visibility to the decisions the NeoOffice/J developers made. All I know this is a Java application and it looks like ass. End of story.
But, to answer your question, yes I have tried to use some Java applications on Mac OS X. Most of them suck. They have slow start-up times, weird ui, and little support for native technology. I don't really care that it might be possible to make a nice Mac app in Java, I care that nobody actually does it.
And how much desktop software is written in Java anyway? Not much. What happened to all of these Java-on-the-desktop gems?:
* Netscape Communicator
* Wordperfect
* Quattro Pro
* Lotus eSuite
Every one of these applications was supposed to get totally rewritten in Java. (Go search for the press releases and news stories... they are still out there.) These promises were made by Sun's partners and promoted loudly by Sun's PR machine.
Did a single one of these mythical Java apps ever ship?
A "native Aqua menu bar" is ridiculous. Look at this Java-based abomination... the rest of the interface is lifted straight out of Windows 98. The open and save dialog boxes are totaly non-standard. This application does not support any native Mac OS X technology such as Applescript, Quartz, native UI controls (except, the menubar).
Yuck. Who wants to see that on their Mac every day?
And, what ever happened to the fully native Aqua interface that Sun promised for Open Office three full years ago:
"I think you can see Open Office running solid on OS X by the end of this calendar year," said Tony Siress, Sun's senior director of desktop marketing solutions.... The current release of Open Office for Mac OS X requires x11," Siress said. "I've got my Hamburg (Germany) team working on eliminating that requirement right now and using Java. Full text
So, let's recap. In 2002 Sun promises to fully support the Aqua interface using Java. Like so many other Java on the desktop promises from Sun, they never make good on this promise. Has anyone ever held Sun's feet to the fire on this and the hundreds of other Java promises they've made in the past 10 years?
Three years after Sun promises Mac OS X support another team of developers finally ship something for Mac OS X that has no Aqua interface at all... except for the MENUBAR.
My analysis of this sad state of affairs is Java has failed on the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
> How can I write portable versions of Mac OS X apps when
> the Cocoa API doesn't exist outside of Mac OS X
You could write your app in REALbasic and compile it as a native Mac app.
Then click a check box and compile it as a native Windows app.
Then click a check box and compile it as a native Linux app.
> Besides that, apps that aren't able to take advantave of the
> underlying platform's unique features aren't sellable.
The Mac version of your app can have metal windows, drawers, sheets, AppleEvents, etc. The Windows version can access the Registry, System Tray, ActiveX, etc. Some of this is handled automatically, others require a little bit of conditional coding.
Rather than out-sourcing the porting project, why not re-write it for Linux yourself using a cross-platform tool development like REALbasic?
x /
Then you control the code and you have just one code base to manage, rather than two or three. These guys tried that and were quite successful:
http://www.realsoftware.com/users/commercial/spam
Heck, you can still do your development on the Mac and cross-compile to Linux and Windows. Or just get the free version for Linux and develop for Linux on Linux.
--
Matt
> If ... balh, blah blah... Java apps look and feel just like
> normal mac applications.
First of all the article is about NeoOffiice/J, which is a Java app running Mac OS X. And it looks like crap. I have no visibility to the decisions the NeoOffice/J developers made. All I know this is a Java application and it looks like ass. End of story.
But, to answer your question, yes I have tried to use some Java applications on Mac OS X. Most of them suck. They have slow start-up times, weird ui, and little support for native technology. I don't really care that it might be possible to make a nice Mac app in Java, I care that nobody actually does it.
And how much desktop software is written in Java anyway? Not much. What happened to all of these Java-on-the-desktop gems?:
* Netscape Communicator
* Wordperfect
* Quattro Pro
* Lotus eSuite
Every one of these applications was supposed to get totally rewritten in Java. (Go search for the press releases and news stories... they are still out there.) These promises were made by Sun's partners and promoted loudly by Sun's PR machine.
Did a single one of these mythical Java apps ever ship?
No.
Java has failed on the desktop.
Yuck. Who wants to see that on their Mac every day?
And, what ever happened to the fully native Aqua interface that Sun promised for Open Office three full years ago:
So, let's recap. In 2002 Sun promises to fully support the Aqua interface using Java. Like so many other Java on the desktop promises from Sun, they never make good on this promise. Has anyone ever held Sun's feet to the fire on this and the hundreds of other Java promises they've made in the past 10 years?Three years after Sun promises Mac OS X support another team of developers finally ship something for Mac OS X that has no Aqua interface at all... except for the MENUBAR.
My analysis of this sad state of affairs is Java has failed on the desktop.