Dharma: Cocoa on Windows... Again?

[MacNeXT]

<snip> I use this stuff today, I use it every day. <snip>

I'm interested to hear what exactly you use these systems for. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually planning to set up OPENSTEP 4.2 on an old laptop I got, but just for fun (I loved the stuff back then, and I'm of the sentimental sort). I can't think of a serious purpose to put too much time in obsolete stuff like this. We have Mac OS X today, hooray!

Are companies still using OPENSTEP, Rhapsody or Yellow Box? Are you servicing old applications?

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Yeah, if the last time you spent any time on an OPENSTEP box was in the late 90's and your statements are that far off the mark... I'd say time has greatly clouded your memory. I use this stuff today, I use it every day. Sorry, this is no faint and distant memory for me, these environments are as current to me now as Mac OS X is.

But feel free to join in with the community. There are still a number of us who are very active. And many of the developers of software from back then have given me permission to provide the community with license strings for their software.

... just don't take your own "it worked brilliantly" statement to heart and try setting up a SPARC or HP system, you'll end up disappointed.

Um, you're trying to do this long after the support structures of the 90's disappeared. Of course the pickings are slim for you now. Furthermore, I think you're blaming cross-compilation when it's far more likely that other factors were actually to blame for missing software.

The availability of commercial apps for Sparc and HP has little to do with how well FAT binaries worked. There simply weren't that many commercial outfits active in the NeXT market in the quad-fat days.

Then there's the simple fact that the developers that were out there may have felt obligated to do testing on the architectures they shipped, and the cost of HP and Sparc hardware would have been prohibitive, especially given the very small installed base on those platforms.

I think that had a lot more to do with any lack of software. High costs for low returns. Freeware and shareware developers clicked the checkboxes. Commercial developers would be less likely to. Assuming they were still in business.

I worked with NeXT boxes of various architectures from 1992 to 2000. I got my start working for AFS (WriteUp/PasteUp). Your attitude really doesn't carry much weight with me.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

I'm interested to hear what exactly you use these systems for. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually planning to set up OPENSTEP 4.2 on an old laptop I got, but just for fun (I loved the stuff back then, and I'm of the sentimental sort). I can't think of a serious purpose to put too much time in obsolete stuff like this. We have Mac OS X today, hooray!

Are companies still using OPENSTEP, Rhapsody or Yellow Box? Are you servicing old applications?

I know that in summer of 2001, Bank of America in Chicago had a really big NeXTSTEP 3.x derivatives trading app from the mid-90s that they were trying to port to Java.

To this day, if you see Objective-C in a Chicago tech job ad, it's probably Bank of America. I don't know to what extent they're still using it.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

I don't think that learning a new language/API is the problem; most developers I come across enjoy that. But they won'rt do it unless they think its worth the effort. ObjectiveC/Cocoa is not really used anywhere outside the Mac, so for a lot of developers, it's probably not worth spending the effort on, even if it is as good as Mac developers say it is.

Perhaps, but that has no effect on in interest in Mac programming.

The theory of the person I replied to is that Objective-C is an obstacle to people doing Mac programming. By what you say, disinterest in Objective-C is related to Objective-C utility on their target platform. Ergo, if they're interested in Mac development, where Objective-C is of high utility, then Objective-C *won't* be any obstacle. It's only an obstacle for people who aren't interested in Mac development regardless of the language, and Objective-C is not well-represented on their chosen target platform.

If these non-Mac developers did learn Objective-C, they still wouldn't be Mac developers. So their interest in learning Objective-C isn't terribly important as far as the Mac goes.

 

[RacerX]

I worked with NeXT boxes of various architectures from 1992 to 2000. I got my start working for AFS (WriteUp/PasteUp).

So you started in 1992 with AFS? You know that PasteUp was started with RightBrain Software... right? And that AFS didn't acquire it until 1994....right? And other than using the foundations of PasteUp to make WriteUp, they didn't make any real improvements to PasteUp after that.

Are you taking credit for AFS's poor handling of that software?

Your attitude really doesn't carry much weight with me.

You started it... and I still don't see much from your comments to take you at face value. So you don't carry any weight with me either.

But if you don't like my attitude, the fastest way to change it would be to resend on the "This is a wild exaggeration" remark. Until such time expect attitude.

Um, you're trying to do this long after the support structures of the 90's disappeared.

That would seem to assume that I started doing any of this recently... I never stopped.

I'm interested to hear what exactly you use these systems for. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually planning to set up OPENSTEP 4.2 on an old laptop I got, but just for fun (I loved the stuff back then, and I'm of the sentimental sort). I can't think of a serious purpose to put too much time in obsolete stuff like this. We have Mac OS X today, hooray!

I mainly use OPENSTEP as my school system. There are a number of mathematics apps that I still use that either haven't made it to Mac OS X or are more expensive than the upgrade would be worth to me.

One of the main apps I use is Geomview, which was developed at the National Science Foundation's Geometry Center back in 1994 when I was there. I keep a copy on both my OPENSTEP system and my SGI Indy for my studies.

And beyond math, I'm able to do most of the stuff that I need on that system to be productive. Create lets me do illustration and page layout types of stuff, and the Lighthouse apps cover most of the office type of tasks. And TIFFany, PixelNhance and ToyViewer cover my image editing bases pretty well.

Still, I'm much more comfortable working in Rhapsody. And spend most of my time working on web pages or writing in that environment. My ThinkPad has been running flawlessly since I installed Rhapsody on it in 1999, and have about 3 GB of documentation and manuals for all the different types of systems I tend to run across.

But the one app that really makes the biggest difference in the usability of these systems for me is Create. It covers enough of the things I need a system for that I tend to have it up and running on any of the systems I work on (OPENSTEP, Rhapsody or Mac OS X). It is my "swiss army knife" app.

Are companies still using OPENSTEP, Rhapsody or Yellow Box? Are you servicing old applications?

I don't have any clients that are still using OPENSTEP, but I do have one client that still uses Rhapsody (Mac OS X Server 1.0.2). That system doesn't require much help in performing it's tasks and they seem very happy with it (specially compared to the AppleShare IP system it replaced).

Back before the release of Mac OS X I knew a number of people who did WebObjects development that used Rhapsody systems for development. Apple may have pushed Rhapsody as a server OS, but a lot of people still used it for workstation types of duties.

 

[rayz]

Perhaps, but that has no effect on in interest in Mac programming.

The theory of the person I replied to is that Objective-C is an obstacle to people doing Mac programming. By what you say, disinterest in Objective-C is related to Objective-C utility on their target platform. Ergo, if they're interested in Mac development, where Objective-C is of high utility, then Objective-C *won't* be any obstacle.

I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it is entirely correct

ObjectiveC *is* an obstacle because it is non-transportable skill on a platform with a small marketshare. If ObjectivC was more widely used and Cocoa was available on other platforms, then developers would be less reluctant to devlop on the Mac.

However, it is not the *only* obstacle. There is still the qustion of whether or not it would be worth developing for a platform with such a small share of the market.

And whether the developer would have to carry out rework every few years as Apple's plans change.

So you are right, it may not be the only reason why there are relatively few developers for the Mac, but I think it is still a large part of it.

Yes, there are other ways to develop software for the Mac, but as a developer, I certanly wouldn't risk using them; who knows if Apple will still support them a year or so down the line.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it is entirely correct

ObjectiveC *is* an obstacle because it is non-transportable skill on a platform with a small marketshare. If ObjectivC was more widely used and Cocoa was available on other platforms, then developers would be less reluctant to devlop on the Mac.

However, it is not the *only* obstacle. There is still the qustion of whether or not it would be worth developing for a platform with such a small share of the market.

And whether the developer would have to carry out rework every few years as Apple's plans change.

So you are right, it may not be the only reason why there are relatively few developers for the Mac, but I think it is still a large part of it.

Yes, there are other ways to develop software for the Mac, but as a developer, I certanly wouldn't risk using them; who knows if Apple will still support them a year or so down the line.

I agree both with you, and the person you quoted. Like I said originally, I haven't seen Objective-C used on anything else besides Openstep/Rhapsody/Mac OS X. In fact, I know of only one compiler that compiles Objective-C code: gcc. I think these two signs tell a large part of the story - the open-source community jumped on Objective-C, but nobody else did.

Well hey, at least we've got the power of Objective-C, which nobody else has, rather than being forced to boast about something like TI-Basic (the variety of BASIC used on the various Texas Instruments programmable graphing calculators).

 

[rayz]

I agree both with you, and the person you quoted. Like I said originally, I haven't seen Objective-C used on anything else besides Openstep/Rhapsody/Mac OS X. In fact, I know of only one compiler that compiles Objective-C code: gcc. I think these two signs tell a large part of the story - the open-source community jumped on Objective-C, but nobody else did.

Well, I think that other languages came along that grabbed more mindshare; Java, then C# ....

Well hey, at least we've got the power of Objective-C, which nobody else has

Well, it could just be that no-one else wants it. Every new language that falls out of some researchy lab somewhere, has real garbage collection. I think that ObjectiveC has fallen way behind in that respect.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

So you are right, it may not be the only reason why there are relatively few developers for the Mac, but I think it is still a large part of it.

I don't think it is a large part of it, except perhaps among people who know nothing about Objective-C and assume learning Objective-C would be as difficult as learning C++; it's a handy excuse, though.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Apple may have pushed Rhapsody as a server OS, but a lot of people still used it for workstation types of duties.

More like a handful of people, not a lot.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Well, I think that other languages came along that grabbed more mindshare; Java, then C# ....

That's definitely true. Sun lost interest in OPENSTEP on Solaris pretty quickly, once they had Java to push.

 

[rayz]

I don't think it is a large part of it, except perhaps among people who know nothing about Objective-C and assume learning Objective-C would be as difficult as learning C++; it's a handy excuse, though.

Mmmmm ... sorry, but I don't see uncertainty and small marketshare as an excuse. Seems like a pretty valid business reason to me.

If developers are uncertain about the future of the platform and the long term support for the tools, then they're obviously not going to take the time out to learn the toolset.

 

[Fukui]

Mmmmm ... sorry, but I don't see uncertainty and small marketshare as an excuse. Seems like a pretty valid business reason to me.

If developers are uncertain about the future of the platform and the long term support for the tools, then they're obviously not going to take the time out to learn the toolset.

I think you are ignoring the fact that developers that create great apps on OS X make a lot of money. It has been documented by the indie developers (1 or 2 man teams) that mac users frequently pay more or actually do pay for quality software as opposed to thier experience on windows... watch "evening at adler" and the varied blogs of developers and you'll see something interesting. OS X office makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year, so does adobe et all. and the others make a disproportionate amount of money considering the very small and focused teams that operate under cocoa.

What OS X needs is dedicated and talented developers, not just "many" of the average ones we get for windows... which for the most part means crappy "me too" apps that break when you change the local setting in control panel...

 

[rayz]

I think you are ignoring the fact that developers that create great apps on OS X make a lot of money.

I'm sure they do. In fact, given that there aren't that there are relatively fewer apps available on on Macs, then there is plenty of scope fo really mediocre apps to make a lot of money too.

If I came up with a really unique idea for an application, then I would make more money building it on Windows, given that the market is so much larger.

A less unique idea would probably make more money on the Mac, since there is a greater possibility that there is less competition there.

It has been documented by the indie developers (1 or 2 man teams) that mac users frequently pay more or actually do pay for quality software as opposed to thier experience on windows... watch "evening at adler" and the varied blogs of developers and you'll see something interesting.

This is true, but again, the reason may be that there is less competition on the Mac. Again, how much money you make really depends on the the application and how well you code it.

OS X office makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year, so does adobe et all. and the others make a disproportionate amount of money considering the very small and focused teams that operate under cocoa.

Neither Office or the Adobe suite are written in Cocoa. Microsoft Office for Windows makes a ton more money for the company for the company, than their Mac version. I believe that Mac applications account for 25% of revenues fo Adobe (I vaguely remember when this was as high as 50%). So it is unlikely that the market for the Mac is big enough for these companies to port their codebase to Cocoa.

What OS X needs is dedicated and talented developers, not just "many" of the average ones we get for windows... which for the most part means crappy "me too" apps that break when you change the local setting in control panel...

There are more crappy developers for Windows, because there are MORE developers for Windows period. Law of averages I guess. Having said that, there are also thousands of excellent developers for Windows too.

Because there are fewer Mac developers, there is more scope to get away with producing mediocre software apps and selling them for a tonne of money (and believe me, I've been suckered by a few of them too - and they were written in Cocoa). Great for the developer, but very bad for the consumer.

Any Windows developer who wishes to make any real money, had better do a damn fine job, unless they're the size of MS or Adobe.

From my own experience, Windows apps are much more functional, and have a wider range of options. The equivalent Mac application will lack many features and cost more to buy, but the UI will be a nicer place to be.

It is true though that Mac users are more inclined to buy software, but I think this is for two reasons:

1/. They do (on average) make more money.
2/. They subconscioulsy know that if they don't buy the software, the platform is at risk.

Windows users don't worry about Number two, which is a shame. If they don't support the smaller outfits, then all they'll have is Adobe and Microsoft. Then how will they feel about paying $1000 for a copy of Word?

 

[Fukui]

1/. They do (on average) make more money.
2/. They subconsciously know that if they don't buy the software, the platform is at risk.

I'll tell you my situation, since I used to do windows until recently.

I *never* purchased a piece of software for windows. There I said it.
(I have bought windows though)

I have bought quite a bit of software for the mac (excluding adobe) and here is the reason I buy it:

1 It serves the purpose I need it for
2 It is beautiful and elegant.

Notice number 2 is not much of a concern in the windows world.

Other than MS Office I basically have bought a lot of indie software that is not overpriced and definitely NOT mediocre. After keynote came out I dropped powerpoint like a brick, not because powerpoint is MS but because keynote is stunning.

I actually do use the mac for the software, for a greater reason than just utility, but for pleasure and quality.

In the windows world, do you really think a software like Delicious Library would count for much? How about the bazzilions of Windows Explorer replacements... don't hold a candle to Path Finder (which is done by ONE GUY). There are many elegant and beautiful apps done by super small teams and can compete with anything put out by the big guys.

I once bought Macromedia's Suite, but now refuse to upgrade, the utility may be there, but its a horrible user experience. Most of the apps from the big (down to about 3 now) companies are pretty much liquid crap as far as user experience is concerned, they only make it because they have a large user base.

The mac is more than about just utility, its about quality, and its a good balance that is enjoyed by many today.

There's lots utilities on windows, but do I (or must consumers) buy computers to run utilities?

Tell Adobe, MS and Alias et all they should drop the mac, even though with its smaller PC share, make a disproportionate amount of sales.

EDIT: BTW I'm not arguing against allowing cross-platform cocoa, just its more important in order to counter WiNE than needing it to keep the mac software world alive.

 

[rayz]

I'll tell you my situation, since I used to do windows until recently.

I *never* purchased a piece of software for windows. There I said it.
(I have bought windows though)

Well, I've never had to buy that much either to be honest.
Office for Windows (a great set of tools, but certainly not cheap)
Macromedia Studio
A couple of others including MSMoney and few hobby type applications.
Every so often though I need something a little more esoteric and then it is often the case that it is either not available on the Mac.
If it is, then it costs more (not a problem in itself - I did buy Office after all!), or it does not have the same feature set, or is not as well supported as the Windows version (and that is a big problem).

I have bought quite a bit of software for the mac (excluding adobe) and here is the reason I buy it:

1 It serves the purpose I need it for
2 It is beautiful and elegant.

Notice number 2 is not much of a concern in the windows world.

I have to admit that Number 2 is not much use to your actual Windows user, if the application is lacking much needed features. Personally, an app can look like a work of art, but if it can't do X, it doesn't get bought. Could be that Windows users just value function over form.
For example, I have tried to find something that can manage even the basic stuff that Money can do (connecting to banks to make reconciliation easier)
Sure there are ways to do it, but you have to jump through hoops and the results are usually less than satisfactory.

So the Windows users reply to point 2 would probably be "What's the point of beautiful and elegant if the functionality I need isn't there?"

Other than MS Office I basically have bought a lot of indie software that is not overpriced and definitely NOT mediocre. After keynote came out I dropped powerpoint like a brick, not because powerpoint is MS but because keynote is stunning.

Can't really judge KeyNote. I was so unhappy with Pages that I just skipped it. I loaded up Pages and while it seemed very elegant as you say, I found that there was no way to reorder pages. Frankly I was stunned that. What kind of DTP app cannot reorder pages?! I understand that a version was released a few week later that fixed this glaring omission, but I'd already abandoned it by then. If it missed something so obvious, what else was I going to stumble on, having done a lot of work that was now saved in a format I couldn't move elsewhere?
I also purchased a relatively expensive Word processor to help with structuring documents on the Mac. Unbelievably, I discovered a few weeks in, that it didn' understand the rather basic concept of the Page Break. Gobsmacked. Found the equivalent on Windows that added a wodge more functionality and the missing page break function.

I think Jobs summed it up best when he went on stage and showed the iMac remote against the remote for a Windows media player. The crowd cheered as Jobs said that the iMac remote was much simpler.
Windows users looked and said "Well, the iMac doesn't have a TV tuner, doesn't support streaming out of the box, doesn't record TV programs - of course the remote has less buttons; it has less stuff to do!

I actually do use the mac for the software, for a greater reason than just utility, but for pleasure and quality.

Don't have a problem with that. But I think for many Windows users, if basic capabilities are missing, then the computer ceases to be a pleasure, it becomes something you have to struggle with. A few months ago, I was using Safari to hit a particular banking site; each time I did, the OS locked up completely. I had to reboot the Powerbook. Now I don't know what you're doing to your OS design that makes your own web browser crash it, but I just had to use Firefox to get to the bank site. Is FireFox as nice as Safari; I certainly don't think so, but I will sacrifice the nice UI if it means having a crash-free experience. I guess its all down to what's important to you.

In the windows world, do you really think a software like Delicious Library would count for much?

Well, probably not. I have no idea why I would need something like that ... :-/
There are quite a few cataloguing apps for Windows, but I would probably just use a simple database or something.
Still, nice looking app though, and that's what's important to Mac users, so it'll do very well on the Mac.
It would probably do even better on WIndows because the market is bigger, but it would face stiff competition from cheaper packages that do more, but probably do not look as flashy. As I've said, Windows users do tend to favour function over form.

How about the bazzilions of Windows Explorer replacements... don't hold a candle to Path Finder (which is done by ONE GUY). There are many elegant and beautiful apps done by super small teams and can compete with anything put out by the big guys.

The fact that you need a replacement kind of shows that there maybe a deficiency with the Finder. Did try PathFinder for a while. Made the PowerBook unstable, so I had to dump it. It did add a lot of much needed basic stuff to the Finder though. I personally have no trouble with the Explorer in Windows, but I think I've just learned to work around its glaring deficiencies. Still I can get around it much quicker than I can with the Finder. Even on Windows though, I tend to steer away from stuff that can make the system unstable.
Having just paid a quick visit to the PathFinder forums, seems that things aren't that rosey at the moment. Those sort of delays would kill a Windows outfit of that size, so its lucky they're on the Mac. Still the developer has been very honest about the problems (bugs in MacOSX and Cocoa) which deserves credit. I think I'll just struggle on with the Finder though, as this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Delays with PathFinder 4

I was surprised at some of the participants reactions to the delays. Surely its better to wait a while, and get an app that won't trash your work?

once bought Macromedia's Suite, but now refuse to upgrade, the utility may be there, but its a horrible user experience. Most of the apps from the big (down to about 3 now) companies are pretty much liquid crap as far as user experience is concerned, they only make it because they have a large user base.

Yes, never been much of a fan of the Macromedia suite but for different reasons. The UI is adequate, the functionality is spot on, but I just find it very unstable.

The mac is more than about just utility, its about quality, and its a good balance that is enjoyed by many today.

I'm sure it is.

There's lots utilities on windows, but do I (or must consumers) buy computers to run utilities?

Obviously not. They buy computers to get work done, not to admire a pretty UI. Simple as that. If there were enough apps that did what they wanted, then the Mac would have 50% market share, as opposed to 4%

Tell Adobe, MS and Alias et all they should drop the mac, even though with its smaller PC share, make a disproportionate amount of sales.

The reason that the sales are disproportionate, is that you don't actually have much choice BUT to buy Adobe and MS. They have the market sewn up on the Mac because there are on of the few companies that can afford to build a full featured suite for such a small market share. Now I'm often in awe at what a single bloke on his own can do with ObjectiveC and Cocoa. I've noticed that a fo a handful of these folk, software development isn't even their main job, but still they manage to churn out well crafted, nice-looking polished applications. But after I've used them for a while, I notice that a lot functionality is missing; Mac users often call this 'simplification', Windows users just call this 'deficiencies' and I guess that's the real difference.

The ability to directly connect to my bank and reconcile accounts. The ability to do finance stuff on my Palm and have it uploaded to Money without fuss or hassle; I would not sacrfice that ability for any UI improvement. The stuff that I couldn't do on the Mac means it sits on my desk relegated to a bit of light browsing and music (which it excels at by the way). Critical stuff? No, not really. It doesn't even come with a backup program. Why would anyone ship an OS without even a basic backup program? It's a pretty fundamental OS task if you ask me
If we get down to it; I'm sure that Windows users would love Windows apps to look as nice as Mac apps; I just don't think they're prepared to sacrifice functionality for it though ....

 

[Fukui]

Can't really judge KeyNote. I was so unhappy with Pages that I just skipped it. I loaded up Pages and while it seemed very elegant as you say, I found that there was no way to reorder pages.

Doooood, I gotta say! Its maybe hidden but you can!

Ok, go to view->show page thumbnail. Or command+alt+p ....
just drag up and down the selected page to re-order.

As for other parts, well everyone has thier feeling...

 

[penthang]

Let's look at developers, since what benefits developers benefits Apple. (DEVELOPERS! DEVEOPERS! DEVELOPERS!!) This benefits Apple if more developers make apps in Xcode, thus being compatible with OS X and Windows.

But why would the developers do that? I don't think they would.

Look, if Apple is doing this (and I think the likely hood is strong that they are) it is for 3 reasons.

1. DEVELOPERS- That is to say they want to capture more developers and have them write code that runs first and best on the Mac. The opportunity for more apps to do this better is now with OSX running on intel since hand coded processor optimizations could be done once for both versions of the app.
2. DEVELOPERS- [Check boxes] Yes! Check boxes. As I recall when compiling openstep applications you selected the target OS and the interface widgets were interchanged and lets think about this...For Adobe photoshop writing the application once and tweaking the individual version interfaces, which is almost entirely changing the menu locations and a few widgets, would have HUGE benefits! While I admit courting vendors to develop in XCode could be a hard sell. If they can however...
3. APPLE- back to point one, Developers writing their software in the preferred language for OSX, think Mac apps without compromise, and Windows apps that also run great.

A win/win

 

[rayz]

Doooood, I gotta say! Its maybe hidden but you can!

Thanks ... er ... Fukui, but this wasn't part of Pages when it was first released; it came in the update.

Ok, go to view->show page thumbnail. Or command+alt+p ....
just drag up and down the selected page to re-order.

As for other parts, well everyone has thier feeling...

Indeed.


Trouble with PathFinder (documented in their forums)
OSX crashing when visiting web pages (documented on Macintouch who save me the effort of reinstalling)
Basic fiunctionality missing (i.e. backup - still amazes me that one)

Not so much feeling, as fact really.

 

[Mechcozmo]

Basic fiunctionality missing (i.e. backup - still amazes me that one)

Not so much feeling, as fact really.

I always just drag n' drop to backup... Automator or AppleScript can be used to create a backup script rather easily.

 

[GregA]

but this wasn't part of Pages when it was first released; it came in the update.

Ahh... you wanted to compare the original version of Pages with the original version of Word?

 

[rayz]

Ahh... you wanted to compare the original version of Pages with the original version of Word?

Not sure what Word has to do with it. I never used the very first version of Word, but I would have said the same thing if it didn't allow me to reorder pages ...

Besides Word is a word processor; for page layout, it's not really that good. Actually, it's a bit rubbish ....

Pages is a page layout app/basic word processor. One of the things that a page layout should do, is allow you to reorder pages. Selecting large blocks of text and graphics was a way around the problem, but it took a long time to process the move, and had a habit of crashing while doing it (but it didn't bring the OS down with it on this occasion, and fortunately, didn't wreck the file), so I don't think that this was the way that page reordering was meant to be handled.

They added it in an update (and as someone has said, made it a little tricky to find), but when you miss out something that basic, I reckoned the safest option was to move something else, rather than have it stuck in a file format that I couldn't transfer later.

I see your point, but if MS hadn't inlcudeed the ability to copy/paste text for example, in the first version of Word, then I would have abandoned it too.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Mmmmm ... sorry, but I don't see uncertainty and small marketshare as an excuse. Seems like a pretty valid business reason to me.

Me too. That's what I said - the *lame excuse* is "I don't wanna learn Objective-C", which is silly on its face, because learning the frameworks is far more work and would be required even if Apple used a more popular language. (It's not like Windows and Unix developers flocked to the Mac prior to Cocoa when development was primarily C/C++. They didn't; where today people whine about Objective-C, then they would have whined about learning the Mac Toolbox, MacApp, or PowerPlant.)

The *actual* reason, if they bothered to consider it long enough, is the business stuff, and would exist regardless of the language used.

Ergo, if the root objections would exist regardless of language, then learning Objective-C is a non-issue.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

So you started in 1992 with AFS? You know that PasteUp was started with RightBrain Software... right? And that AFS didn't acquire it until 1994....right? And other than using the foundations of PasteUp to make WriteUp, they didn't make any real improvements to PasteUp after that.

Are you taking credit for AFS's poor handling of that software?

Yes, I know all that. I was there from 1992 to 1994. When I interviewed the company consisted of three guys in the founder's basement. By the time I started, they'd moved into an office and added a few more employees.

What do you know about running a business? Should they have slacked on the revenue-generating side of their business to appease an academic rhapsody fanboy? How many people should have lost their jobs pursuing a nonexistant market in order to make you happy?

Do you even know what business AFS is *in*? Do you know anything about AFS, at all?

What was the business case for PasteUp and WriteUp in the late 90s, and early 2000s? OpenStep was essentially a dead platform with no market, Rhapsody was little more than a promise from Apple with very questionable prospects, and OS X wasn't quite as imposing as it is now (mostly because Apple itself is doing great.)

Guess what: when you're a small business and your revenue comes from writing custom financial trading software for big and/or rich investment companies, you don't slack off on support for *them* so that you can chase risky side opportunities that will probably never turn a profit.

 

[RacerX]

...academic rhapsody fanboy?

Sorry your attitude hasn't changed. Besides, our conversation on the subject ended with the post that got you banned.