 |
 |
Showing Logic-users Thread 62720 of 105817 |  |
 |
Forum Index | Read LUG: Policy/Rules Messages Threads Digests | Post New Message | Search!
From: "resomania" <midigods ...> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 at 8:59:53 PM Subject: [LAM] is Logic for OS X Carbon or Cocoa?? |
Message #120567 |
just wondering if Logic Audio for OS X is a carbonized version of
the old code, or was it rewritten in Cocoa?
...> replied on Wed, 2 Oct 2002 at 11:30:52 PM|
From: "John Pitcairn" <johnp...> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 at 11:30:52 PM Subject: Re: [LAM] is Logic for OS X Carbon or Cocoa?? |
Message #120570 This is a reply to #120567. |
--- In logic-users@y..., "resomania" <midigods@a...> wrote:
> just wondering if Logic Audio for OS X is a carbonized version of
> the old code, or was it rewritten in Cocoa?
Carbon. A cocoa rewrite would be a huge undertaking.
-------------
John Pitcairn
Got midi fader/knob hardware? Try the Fadermapper demo:
http://www.revolver.co.nz/fadermapper/
|
From: homburg <homburg...> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 at 10:37:00 PM Subject: Re: [LUG] [LAM] is Logic for OS X Carbon or Cocoa?? |
Message #120576 This is a reply to #120567. |
> just wondering if Logic Audio for OS X is a carbonized version of
> the old code, or was it rewritten in Cocoa?
who can really say?
but if you read the definitions for carbon/cocoa you would have to
conclude that it has more than just carbon - if only because carbon
does not cover direct control of hardware.
|
From: Lachlan Deck <ldeck...> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 at 11:30:43 PM Subject: Re: [LUG] [LAM] is Logic for OS X Carbon or Cocoa?? |
Message #120579 This is a reply to #120567. |
>On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 11:59 AM, resomania wrote:
> just wondering if Logic Audio for OS X is a carbonized version of
> the old code, or was it rewritten in Cocoa?
Hi there,
Educated guess: Carbon...
It would take quite a while to rewrite (err - start from scratch)
...not to mention have two differing development trees for OS 9/X
AFAIK, these days Carbon apps don't really miss out on anything (much?).
The advantage of Cocoa is efficient development times.
As a comparison example,
Cocoa TextEdit vs Carbon SimpleText
3.6k vs 17.2k lines of code...
Of course (for the time being) a Cocoa app would be far less portable...
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
ldeck@...
|
From: "Charles G. Watson" <organism...> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 at 12:14:23 PM Subject: Re: [LUG] [LAM] is Logic for OS X Carbon or Cocoa?? |
Message #120637 This is a reply to #120576. |
> > just wondering if Logic Audio for OS X is a carbonized version of
> > the old code, or was it rewritten in Cocoa?
> but if you read the definitions for carbon/cocoa you would have to
> conclude that it has more than just carbon - if only because carbon
> does not cover direct control of hardware.
Logic Audio on OS X is Carbon. This was confirmed by Markus several
months ago, when the question was asked before.
With the advent of Core Audio, direct control over hardware is no
longer necessary. It was needed in OS 9, but in X, Core Audio handles
everything.
I've been told that Carbon applications can do anything that Cocoa
applications can do. I'm not a developer, so I can't confirm this.
But I have no reason to beleive otherwise.
|
From: Lachlan Deck <ldeck...> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 at 6:11:28 PM Subject: Re: [LUG] [LAM] is Logic for OS X Carbon or Cocoa?? |
Message #120757 This is a reply to #120637. |
Hi there,
Charles G. Watson wrote:
> Logic Audio on OS X is Carbon. This was confirmed by Markus several
> months ago, when the question was asked before.
>
> With the advent of Core Audio, direct control over hardware is no
> longer necessary.
Nor possible - which is the crux of the situation with a memory
protected system like OS X...
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
ldeck@...
Forum Index | Read LUG: Policy/Rules Messages Threads Digests | Post New Message | Search!
Forum Index | Read LUG: Policy/Rules Messages Threads Digests | Post New Message | Search!
© 1994-2008, All Rights Reserved.