PDA

View Full Version : hahhah



Stooch
10-15-2007, 10:22 AM
http://cybermessageboard.fatcow.com/ssonte/viewtopic.php?t=536&highlight=vista

matix
10-15-2007, 10:25 AM
http://cybermessageboard.fatcow.com/ssonte/viewtopic.php?t=536&highlight=vista


I guess Vista64 is still an option since its basically a PC now anyway. :thumbsup:

Sande
10-15-2007, 11:17 AM
Troll is getting slow - that's pretty old news.

matix
10-15-2007, 11:29 AM
Troll is getting slow - that's pretty old news.


Riding the LightWave with MacPro 8 core 3.0GHz 5GiB RAM and MacBookPro 2 core 2,33GHz 2GiB RAM

hows that working out for you? :neener:

Sande
10-15-2007, 11:32 AM
Pretty damn fast, I can tell you. :neener:

Stooch
10-15-2007, 11:35 AM
Troll is getting slow - that's pretty old news.


The following items are not considered professional or civil discourse allowed on these forums:

Off-topic and controversial subjects such as Religion and Politics
Comments of an "off color" nature inappropriate for viewing by minors
Non-constructive criticism of a malicious nature
Personal attacks against NewTek customers or employees and their family members
Promotional messages and material for competing products

Those who are unable to keep their posts on topic, unable to maintain responsible civil conversation with others or who have no purpose on the NewTek forums other than to promote competing products will have their accounts removed.

Sande
10-15-2007, 11:39 AM
Hahhah, are you still bitter because you got banned the last time you came here to provoke people? :D

___mats___
10-15-2007, 01:35 PM
starting a "hahaha" topic is is a sign of the intentions of this russian troll.

the topic you used gave it away Stooch

reported.

Chilton
10-15-2007, 01:45 PM
Hi,

There are numerous errors in that post. I invite everyone to view this simple explanation of them before posting further. Please do not comment on this until everyone has had a chance to catch up, so that there is no further confusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Thank you,
-Chilton

Glendalough
10-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Exactly what does all this mean in the layman's terms?

That Apple has done this bad thing and it will make it difficult for "developers" to adapt or write programs in 64 bits in the new 10.5 OS.

Or that the new 10.5 OS will not (as usual) be (completely) 64 bits, meaning that companies like say Adobe and Newtek (when and if they do) start to write 64 bits it won't be available for Mac as impossible or just more difficult.

kopperdrake
10-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Boy does that video bring back memories! Stick a Bon Jovi video and 'Final Countdown' in there, maybe a bit of Ah-Ha's 'Take on Me' and you've got my late teens pretty much wrapped up...

...was I thankful for grunge hitting the scene :D

Stooch
10-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Hahhah, are you still bitter because you got banned the last time you came here to provoke people? :D

actually NT should be bitter, i cost them alot of sales. :)

jwiede
10-15-2007, 02:50 PM
Exactly what does all this mean in the layman's terms?

That Apple has done this bad thing and it will make it difficult for "developers" to adapt or write programs in 64 bits in the new 10.5 OS.

Or that the new 10.5 OS will not (as usual) be (completely) 64 bits, meaning that companies like say Adobe and Newtek (when and if they do) start to write 64 bits it won't be available for Mac as impossible or just more difficult.There are so many erroneous interpretations and conclusions made by the referenced post that started this thing, that it isn't really worth taking seriously.

Even if the 64-bit API situation in Leopard were as described (it isn't), a conclusion that something affecting Carbon APIs affects "all Mac development" is ludicrous, and demonstrably incorrect. A huge and ever-increasing number of OSX apps were either written against Cocoa originally, or have rewritten for Cocoa precisely because of the many benefits Cocoa offers.

Stooch
10-15-2007, 03:25 PM
your explanation is superceeded by a far superior one here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cuLcCPVYLc


Hi,

There are numerous errors in that post. I invite everyone to view this simple explanation of them before posting further. Please do not comment on this until everyone has had a chance to catch up, so that there is no further confusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Thank you,
-Chilton

Steamthrower
10-15-2007, 03:26 PM
actually NT should be bitter, i cost them alot of sales.

I seriously doubt that. If one really wanted to discourage LW purchases, one'd go about it in a rather more subtle way.

Stooch
10-15-2007, 04:48 PM
like discouraging producers to buy into lw pipeline for future projects?

of course its more to do with LWs inadequacies then me being banned, however whatever loyalty i had that prevented me from doing so in the past certainly got erased. :)

loki74
10-15-2007, 06:13 PM
this has to be the saddest, most puerile example of trolling I have ever seen.

Stooch, you are the only person I can think of at the moment who just loves to start pissing contests over platform use.

Seriously, what do you want us all to do? say something like, "ZOMG! SYNTHEYES ISNT ON COCOA! OH NOES! We better ALL switch back!!!!111oneone"

...well, its either something along those lines or you're just trying to piss some people off. That's trolling. You are a troll.

In any case, I don't see why switching to Cocoa should be such a huge problem.

Last I checked, you could use C, Obj-C, and C++ in Cocoa. That's hardly what I'd call "proprietary." What do they want to write it in, Visual Basic? The fact is, Cocoa is the direction development on OSX is going anyway. If they don't want to go along with that, hey fine, whatever. Stop development... if it's more cost-effective to add more features to the windows version and lose all mac customers than it is to keep both platforms, that's their business decision.

For me, it will always be more cost effective for me to use my Mac, for the mere reason that I hate pulling my hair out trying to negotiate with the bloated, sluggish, nagging, annoying-as-f*ck to use, blatantly obvious OSX-Ripoff PoS that is Windows Vista, even if it's the platform with 64-bit syntheyes. (Yes, I have used it and practically every version of windows since win95 quite a bit, and I am qualified to judge.)

avkills
10-15-2007, 10:51 PM
That's funny, I am using up to 4GB of RAM right now in my 32bit LW application on OS X.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cocoa has little to nothing to do with the core code of applications. I am pretty sure that you could code in C and do 64bit. Cocoa is used for the interface and API set, right?

-mark

Stooch
10-16-2007, 12:02 AM
hmm. doesnt take much to upset you does it? Your response is rather strong for a simple hahhah and a link. :)


this has to be the saddest, most puerile example of trolling I have ever seen.

Stooch, you are the only person I can think of at the moment who just loves to start pissing contests over platform use.

Seriously, what do you want us all to do? say something like, "ZOMG! SYNTHEYES ISNT ON COCOA! OH NOES! We better ALL switch back!!!!111oneone"

...well, its either something along those lines or you're just trying to piss some people off. That's trolling. You are a troll.

In any case, I don't see why switching to Cocoa should be such a huge problem.

Last I checked, you could use C, Obj-C, and C++ in Cocoa. That's hardly what I'd call "proprietary." What do they want to write it in, Visual Basic? The fact is, Cocoa is the direction development on OSX is going anyway. If they don't want to go along with that, hey fine, whatever. Stop development... if it's more cost-effective to add more features to the windows version and lose all mac customers than it is to keep both platforms, that's their business decision.

For me, it will always be more cost effective for me to use my Mac, for the mere reason that I hate pulling my hair out trying to negotiate with the bloated, sluggish, nagging, annoying-as-f*ck to use, blatantly obvious OSX-Ripoff PoS that is Windows Vista, even if it's the platform with 64-bit syntheyes. (Yes, I have used it and practically every version of windows since win95 quite a bit, and I am qualified to judge.)

toby
10-16-2007, 12:18 AM
like discouraging producers to buy into lw pipeline for future projects?
ooooh, you're so powerful....

What we have here is one mac-hater holding up another mac-haters BS as proof - "Here, I saw it on the internets, see??"

Try quoting news next time, if you get tired of making a fool of yourself.

Now why don't you run along and go reinstall your system or something - the next best thing to trolling.

loki74
10-16-2007, 01:25 AM
hmm. doesnt take much to upset you does it? Your response is rather strong for a simple hahhah and a link. :)

LOL! come on. You really think that's gonna work here? I think you're upset that we're all here peacefully enjoying our Macs and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. This is a 3D app forum, not a grounds for a platform platform war, and yet you can't help but walk on in here and troll like this? That is really so sad.

Of course, you've also managed to not make any counter arguments to a single point I've made. So I suppose I could say you're a really chill guy, since your response is rather weak for a set of valid points... :)

Stooch
10-16-2007, 02:23 PM
Of course, you've also managed to not make any counter arguments to a single point I've made. So I suppose I could say you're a really chill guy, since your response is rather weak for a set of valid points... :)


did it occur to you that im not interested in arguing?

Stooch
10-16-2007, 02:25 PM
lol. whats wrong tobes? still havent gotten laid yet? might help to blow off some steam you know.


ooooh, you're so powerful....

What we have here is one mac-hater holding up another mac-haters BS as proof - "Here, I saw it on the internets, see??"

Try quoting news next time, if you get tired of making a fool of yourself.

Now why don't you run along and go reinstall your system or something - the next best thing to trolling.

loki74
10-16-2007, 03:21 PM
did it occur to you that im not interested in arguing?

full of excuses, aren't we?

If you weren't here to convince anyone of anything (and by extension, to argue), then why did you even start this thread?

I mean, you walk into here, a place you really shouldn't give two sh!ts about, do your best to offend everyone here, and you can't even back up what you're saying? Man, you really are pathetic...

Lightwolf
10-16-2007, 03:25 PM
In any case, I don't see why switching to Cocoa should be such a huge problem.
It is basically a like a port to a different OS. The API is very, very different different.
Basically like porting from a MacOS based system to a NeXT Step system (well, that's what it is anyhow). It goes way beyond just calling different APIs, since the actual data expected by them is different as well (you can convert, obviously).

Carbon is bad enough from a cross platform PoV (I haven't had a closer look at Cocoa yet).

Cheers,
Mike

loki74
10-16-2007, 03:35 PM
It is basically a like a port to a different OS. The API is very, very different different.
Basically like porting from a MacOS based system to a NeXT Step system (well, that's what it is anyhow). It goes way beyond just calling different APIs, since the actual data expected by them is different as well (you can convert, obviously).

Carbon is bad enough from a cross platform PoV (I haven't had a closer look at Cocoa yet).

Cheers,
Mike

Well I don't think that anyone is going to disagree that it will be much more complicated than a simple recompile. But I really just don't think it's the end of the world--it's not as though they have to learn an entirely new, proprietary programming language. And like I said, if they want to drop OSX support, hey, fine, that's their decision. It's not going to make me switch back.

toby
10-16-2007, 03:47 PM
lol. whats wrong tobes? still havent gotten laid yet? might help to blow off some steam you know.
Spoken like a true troll.

Lightwolf
10-16-2007, 03:52 PM
--it's not as though they have to learn an entirely new, proprietary programming language.
Errrrrmmmmmmmm..... yes/no ;)
You can mix C++ and Objective-C, but from the last information I've seen code interfacing with Cocoa needs to be Obj-C.
So, you have to learn a new language, a new API and then make it fit with your exisiting code (written in another language).
Another option of course is to use a cross platform GUI toolkit, but I assume most of them depend on Carbon as well (since they are written in C++/C, such as wxWidgets or QT).

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it require serious effort - and OSX sales better make up for it (looking at it from a purely financial point of view).

Cheers,
Mike

avkills
10-16-2007, 04:00 PM
Errrrrmmmmmmmm..... yes/no ;)
You can mix C++ and Objective-C, but from the last information I've seen code interfacing with Cocoa needs to be Obj-C.
So, you have to learn a new language, a new API and then make it fit with your exisiting code (written in another language).
Another option of course is to use a cross platform GUI toolkit, but I assume most of them depend on Carbon as well (since they are written in C++/C, such as wxWidgets or QT).

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it require serious effort - and OSX sales better make up for it (looking at it from a purely financial point of view).

Cheers,
Mike

Well that was what I was kind of getting at; the underlying code can still be C++, but whenever you need to interact with the OS and/or GUI, it has to be Obj-C and Cocoa.

A real man would code the heavy iron in assembly. ;)

-mark

Lightwolf
10-16-2007, 04:11 PM
A real man would code the heavy iron in assembly. ;)

I won't tell you that I had to code using binray dip switches once... but the output was only a bunch of LEDs as well (yup, assembler->binary opcodes by hand).

It made me drop out of computer science and think about a different career choice. ;)

Cheers
Mike

avkills
10-16-2007, 04:26 PM
I won't tell you that I had to code using binray dip switches once... but the output was only a bunch of LEDs as well (yup, assembler->binary opcodes by hand).

It made me drop out of computer science and think about a different career choice. ;)

Cheers
Mike

Heh heh, don't look at me either... I am just passing the line on from my brother, who thinks it is fun programming a CM5 using assembly. He's just sick, I tell ya.

-mark

Lightwolf
10-16-2007, 04:29 PM
Heh heh, don't look at me either... I am just passing the line on from my brother, who thinks it is fun programming a CM5 using assembly. He's just sick, I tell ya.

Nah, he's allright, it is fun. The problem back then was I came from motorola assembler.. and had to code on a brain dead intel CPU... *ouch*.

Enough of that ;)

Cheers,
Mike

loki74
10-16-2007, 05:20 PM
well I guess that makes sense. I always thought that you could use C or Obj-C, but thinking about it, that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

I would still maintain that it would be a worthwhile investment (depending, of course, on how many Mac customers they have) given that there will be many new features of Cocoa that just can't be accessed in Carbon.

eblu
10-16-2007, 10:11 PM
Errrrrmmmmmmmm..... yes/no ;)
You can mix C++ and Objective-C, but from the last information I've seen code interfacing with Cocoa needs to be Obj-C.
So, you have to learn a new language, a new API and then make it fit with your exisiting code (written in another language).
Another option of course is to use a cross platform GUI toolkit, but I assume most of them depend on Carbon as well (since they are written in C++/C, such as wxWidgets or QT).

I'm not saying it can't be done... but it require serious effort - and OSX sales better make up for it (looking at it from a purely financial point of view).

Cheers,
Mike


uhh... mike?
I've read everything you've said in this thread. and umm... uhh... lets just say that you're misinformed. Objective C is an extension to C. and lately they've added support for C++. This means, that ObjC doesn't supercede or replace C... in other words: you can make ANY kind of C or C++ call from in Objective C.
you include the header, and link the lib, and you can make any C/C++ call.
in Fact, You routinely make C (or C++) Calls all the time in Cocoa, and I've personally made calls to unix, and carbon in the same app.
The OS itself offers a HUGE library of tools collectively known as Cocoa (among other things), but you aren't bound to use them. you can use ANY XWindows calls, any Unix Libs, any openGL, or Quartz, or Foundation, or any Library you can think of in C or C++. (you could add several other languages and scripting environments, all accessible IN the cocoa environment)
And to get an interface, to get the stuff you make to a window? You could use Cocoa, but you could also use Java, Xwin, or carbon. But if you use Cocoa, Apple has provided both: an easy setup with a lot of freebies, and several ways of translating images, and Graphics contexts into other Kinds of contexts, making it, if not trivial, then much more straightforward to get your info into a cocoa app, than into carbon.

Now we're just waiting for the carbon entrenched developers to get used to Cocoa. LW btw, has already begun its move to the modern plumbing from carbon.

loki74
10-16-2007, 11:38 PM
uhh... mike?
I've read everything you've said in this thread. and umm... uhh... lets just say that you're misinformed. Objective C is an extension to C. and lately they've added support for C++. This means, that ObjC doesn't supercede or replace C... in other words: you can make ANY kind of C or C++ call from in Objective C.
you include the header, and link the lib, and you can make any C/C++ call.
in Fact, You routinely make C (or C++) Calls all the time in Cocoa, and I've personally made calls to unix, and carbon in the same app.
The OS itself offers a HUGE library of tools collectively known as Cocoa (among other things), but you aren't bound to use them. you can use ANY XWindows calls, any Unix Libs, any openGL, or Quartz, or Foundation, or any Library you can think of in C or C++. (you could add several other languages and scripting environments, all accessible IN the cocoa environment)
And to get an interface, to get the stuff you make to a window? You could use Cocoa, but you could also use Java, Xwin, or carbon. But if you use Cocoa, Apple has provided both: an easy setup with a lot of freebies, and several ways of translating images, and Graphics contexts into other Kinds of contexts, making it, if not trivial, then much more straightforward to get your info into a cocoa app, than into carbon.

Now we're just waiting for the carbon entrenched developers to get used to Cocoa. LW btw, has already begun its move to the modern plumbing from carbon.


wait, are you telling me that you can the same nib file(s) and UI programming from a carbon project, and use them unaltered in a cocoa project?!

What are the parts that must be rewritten to port from carbon to cocoa?

Stooch
10-17-2007, 05:31 AM
Full of bottled up anger arent we?

What is truly pathetic is your ridiculous relationship to your beloved mac and the overblown and exaggerated response to a non existant threat. Do you not realize how stupid you look getting so worked up over nothing? now wipe off the spittle off your overpriced apple cinema display (or is it a dell LOL?) and find a real problem to cry about. :D



full of excuses, aren't we?

If you weren't here to convince anyone of anything (and by extension, to argue), then why did you even start this thread?

I mean, you walk into here, a place you really shouldn't give two sh!ts about, do your best to offend everyone here, and you can't even back up what you're saying? Man, you really are pathetic...

eblu
10-17-2007, 05:45 AM
well, yes and no. Cocoa isn't carbon. its not procedural, and it doesn't use the same apis. You definitely Have to reWrite in order to move from carbon to cocoa. But its not the same as moving from say: pascal to C. You can make Carbon calls from inside your cocoa app, which means that you don't have to kick all of your code directly to the curb. I've used carbon myself with the EASY app I wrote. the code goes a little something like this:

MProcessors(); // tells me how many processors are in the machine.

and as long as I had included the Carbon header, and linked to its lib... it worked. But thats not really all that difficult, or magical, right? But Apple has taken another step to help you out... you can have a Carbon View INSIDE your Cocoa Nib file! This is for people with a lot invested in Carbon but want some advanced features, and a free ride with some of the basics. Back in the day, when they were researching Quartz, Apple developed techniques for getting images from one Graphics context to another, and then they published them. Theres example code for getting from OpenGl to quicktime, to carbon GWorlds, to cocoa, and back, and tips on how to accelerate it.

so Now... with the carbon view and the ability to make Carbon calls, you CAN write something that is Carbon from inside Cocoa. the deal is that its not a toll free bridge, there will always be Some amount of work, but its:
1. really not terribly difficult to mix and match Carbon and cocoa from inside of Cocoa.
2. been designed for flexibility in your learning curve.
3. and its quickly becoming unnecessary. Apple is Taking every lesson they learned from Carbon, and making Cocoa That much better. With the new implementation of Quicktime, the Core Apis, the Foundation Classes, and even carbon itself, Cocoa is maturing way beyond Carbon's capabilities. Writing a fully realized app is getting easier and easier, even as Users expect more and more bells and whistles.

I have a great example for this. I personally wrote a fully functional image compositor this weekend. it loads N number of images into a canvas, and you can move scale and rotate the images. You can Also PAN, ORBIT, and ZOOM, the canvas. its all graphics card accelerated, its got tool bars, and open dialogs... and I did the whole thing in under 20 hours. yer average programming hobby-est. I couldn't even begin to do this in carbon, and if I could, it wouldn't be done in 20 hours, and it wouldn't have nearly as many code freebies.

The options are out there for developers, and they aren't as nasty as you've been lead to believe.

Lightwolf
10-17-2007, 06:34 AM
uhh... mike?
I've read everything you've said in this thread. and umm... uhh... lets just say that you're misinformed.
I'm not surprised, I got the information from the Apple developer site ;)


Objective C is an extension to C. and lately they've added support for C++. This means, that ObjC doesn't supercede or replace C... in other words: you can make ANY kind of C or C++ call from in Objective C.

That isn't the problem. But, can you access all of Cocoa natively from C++ without having to write a single code of Obj-C?
This is the real issue here. Cocoa forces you into Obj-C - even if just to interface to your cross platform C/C++ based code.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
10-17-2007, 06:54 AM
There's also Obj-C++.

Lightwolf
10-17-2007, 06:58 AM
There's also Obj-C++.
Yup, which allows you to mix Objective C and C++. That still doesn't solve the issue though.

Cheers,
Mike

Darth Mole
10-17-2007, 07:01 AM
Jesus, Stooch, what's in the irradiated water up there in no-man's land makes you start a thread labelled 'hahhah! anyway? I presume you think it's funny that Mac users are being short-changed somehow (though frankly, I couldn't care less).

That's a pretty nasty attitude you got there.

eblu
10-17-2007, 08:03 AM
Yup, which allows you to mix Objective C and C++. That still doesn't solve the issue though.

Cheers,
Mike

LOL! Mike, sheesh... you don't want someone to do all the work for you? ok, sure, fine.
in a case like That, you simply don't use OBJ C, or cocoa. You use foundation classes and whatever core techs you need, under C or C++. (or even java)

Cocoa completely wraps the foundation classes, using them to do all the hard work, and providing an OBJC/C++ interface. The Foundation Classes provide all of the low level functionality to Cocoa, and it does so in C and C++. the design is tight. Foundation IS the way it is, Because apple Knows that not everybody needs/wants cocoa.

but back to your original question... can OBJC calls be made from a C program? yes. you "shouldn't" do that on os x, but you could. You shouldn't do it simply because you (the developer) are not intimately familiar with the plumbing of OS X, and you may have trouble getting the project setup correctly in order to use Cocoa in your C app. Its kinda like being offered a free ride in an airplane to the other side of the country and saying: " no thanks, I'm just going to break a billion bottles and crawl across them, I'll see you when i get there."

every cool thing in cocoa is accessible outside of OBJC/C++.

Lightwolf
10-17-2007, 08:14 AM
LOL! Mike, sheesh... you don't want someone to do all the work for you? ok, sure, fine.
in a case like That, you simply don't use OBJ C, or cocoa. You use foundation classes and whatever core techs you need, under C or C++. (or even java)

Ah, now this is something I didn't know. So, you can use the foundation classes, forget about Cocoa and compile everything with a GUI as a 64bit app for Leopard, right?


but back to your original question... can OBJC calls be made from a C program? yes.
But that wasn't my question. My question was if I could use Cocoa from C++ directly, and so far all the answers I've seen point to a definite no - not without an Obj-C interface (I'm ignoring scripting language wrappers and the apparently obsolete Java interfaces).

Ceers,
Mike

eblu
10-17-2007, 09:35 AM
Ah, now this is something I didn't know. So, you can use the foundation classes, forget about Cocoa and compile everything with a GUI as a 64bit app for Leopard, right?

But that wasn't my question. My question was if I could use Cocoa from C++ directly, and so far all the answers I've seen point to a definite no - not without an Obj-C interface (I'm ignoring scripting language wrappers and the apparently obsolete Java interfaces).

Ceers,
Mike


well mike, if you want to use an extension to C, just like C++... you absolutely must Tell the compiler about it. you can't possibly expect C to respond to C++ language right? OBJ C is the same thing. You want the benefit, you Have to drink the kool aid. you need to link to the Libs, include the .h files, and do all of the other miscellaneous stuff in XCode, that is necessary in order to make OBJ C calls. Then by all means, make OBJC calls from C++, but you've made your C++ environment into an OBJC one... the hard way.

better to write your C/C++ code, with an eye for encapsulation. separate your code by task, interface and implementation. then, your app has legs and can go anywhere. need to go to the mac? just rewrite the UI, the implementation stays the same. This stuff is pretty standard, its not a mac only design principle, it benefits you on whatever platform you happen to be on. It just so happens that it makes working w/ cocoa and ObjC drastically easier than rewriting from scratch.

Lightwolf
10-17-2007, 09:39 AM
need to go to the mac? just rewrite the UI, the implementation stays the same.
In Objective-C of course. Which my point, you're forced to us a non-standard language.
I still wonder if any of the cross platform GUI libraries will run as 64bit binaries, but I assume we'll see in a few weeks.

Cheers,
Mike

loki74
10-17-2007, 02:53 PM
Full of bottled up anger arent we?

What is truly pathetic is your ridiculous relationship to your beloved mac and the overblown and exaggerated response to a non existant threat. Do you not realize how stupid you look getting so worked up over nothing? now wipe off the spittle off your overpriced apple cinema display (or is it a dell LOL?) and find a real problem to cry about. :D

bottled up anger? now that is more "LOL"-worthy than a Mac user using a Dell display!

And, no, the overpriced (which it was) Apple cinema wasn't right for me; I got a Sony 23" for way less. The Dell was even less I think, but I didn't hear about that deal until I already had my Sony. Anyway, that's beside the point.

I'm not the one walking into a forum I don't care about and flamebaiting. Why don't you just run back to your little sandbox and play with that shiny toy, Vista? You can even run 64 bit SynthEyes on it! I give you my word, I will not disturb you there, no matter how many times you try to ruffle feathers here.

"Nonexistent threat" is probably the most accurate two words you've typed in this entire thread. Neither the SynthEyes dev team getting their panties in a bunch over Apples decision nor you coming in here and flaimbating is much of a real threat to us Mac users. And for that matter, you b!tching about LW probably isn't a threat to NT's sales either.

I'm just trying to figure out why you started this thread. You're not here for a logical argument, clearly you know you won't convince anyone. I say you're flamebaiting and trolling, but you don't seem to agree to that either. So again, I ask, if not for any of the aforementioned reasons, why did you spend the time to start and follow this thread?




well mike, if you want to use an extension to C, just like C++... you absolutely must Tell the compiler about it. you can't possibly expect C to respond to C++ language right? OBJ C is the same thing. You want the benefit, you Have to drink the kool aid. you need to link to the Libs, include the .h files, and do all of the other miscellaneous stuff in XCode, that is necessary in order to make OBJ C calls. Then by all means, make OBJC calls from C++, but you've made your C++ environment into an OBJC one... the hard way.

better to write your C/C++ code, with an eye for encapsulation. separate your code by task, interface and implementation. then, your app has legs and can go anywhere. need to go to the mac? just rewrite the UI, the implementation stays the same. This stuff is pretty standard, its not a mac only design principle, it benefits you on whatever platform you happen to be on. It just so happens that it makes working w/ cocoa and ObjC drastically easier than rewriting from scratch.

Ah... okay, this (and the other posts) clears up a lot. thanks!

And I've gotta completely agree with you about the code freebies. I nearly wet my pants reading about Core Data and all the freebies it give you (especially the free undo/redo). I mean, wow!

Lightwolf
10-17-2007, 04:04 PM
Neither the SynthEyes dev team getting their panties in a bunch over Apples decision...
Hey, don't pull Russ into this ;) Especially since there is no team, just one guy writing one app who needs to defend his decisions against his users.

And if something like the supposed 64bit support change for Leopard (which we don't seem to know for sure yet unless you're NDAed by Apple) messes with his development plans he surely has a reason to rant... at least a tiny bit ;)

Cheers,
Mike

loki74
10-17-2007, 06:04 PM
Hey, don't pull Russ into this ;) Especially since there is no team, just one guy writing one app who needs to defend his decisions against his users.

And if something like the supposed 64bit support change for Leopard (which we don't seem to know for sure yet unless you're NDAed by Apple) messes with his development plans he surely has a reason to rant... at least a tiny bit ;)

Cheers,
Mike

ohhhh, okay. I suppose that's true, so I'll retract the statement.