Java on MacOS dead ?

Thanks for the quick response. I will take a look at PyObjC then.
As far as I can tell all Carbon C++ frameworks (MacApp, MacZoop,
PowerPlant) have been discontinued, right ?

In article <1148935348.469605.55060.DeleteThis@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
grubertm.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

> I came across a usenet post stating that Cocoa will no longer provide
> Java bindings. Is that correct ?

It appears to be, but that's a very different state of affairs than
"Java on Mac OS dead."

> As a long-time MFC programmer who recently switched to Mac I am trying
> to find some framework to use. Carbon and C seems like it requires a
> lot of extra effort , and my eyes are still hurting from Objective-C
> tutorials, ...

Um. Why? What about them in particular did you find challenging? Cocoa's
a very worthwhile starting point for mainstream Mac OS development, and
worth the effort to learn. But it really, honestly, shouldn't be a
tremendous effort for someone capable of coping with MFC (intellectually
and emotionally). Some of the simplest tutorials I've seen are more than
a tad contrived. Was that it?

G

--
"Congurutulation!!!" - The subject line on some spam I received recently.
I have no idea what it means, but it's such a cool "word" (by which I mean
pronouncable sequence of letters) regardless.

grubertm.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> As a long-time MFC programmer who recently switched to Mac I am trying
> to find some framework to use.

Try the ZooLib C++ cross-platform application framework:

http://www.zoolib.org/

Mike
crawford at goingware dot com

simmer26.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> What Apple is doing is phasing out Cocoa Java support. When Apple adds
> something new to Cocoa, they will add it only to the Objective C
> version of Cocoa.
>
> What Apple is not doing is phasing out Java support. You can write Java
> Swing applications that will run on Mac OS X.
>
> If you want to use Cocoa, but hate Objective C, you can try PyObjC. It
> lets you write Cocoa applications in Python. You can find more
> information about it at the following URL:
>
> http://pyobjc.sourceforge.net

Anyone here used RubyCocoa?
http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/

It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky. That's why I
was hoping to use the framework as well as Interface Builder but with a
different language.

Sorry for the misleading title, obviously Java won't die until Sun
pulls the plug on it.

grubertm DeleteThis @gmail.com writes:

> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky. That's why I
> was hoping to use the framework as well as Interface Builder but with a
> different language.

Give it time. *Any* language will seem clunky at first.

I'd recommend biting the bullet and using Objective-C while you're learning
the framework. It's the native language of the framework, and you'll need to
be able to at least read it in order to understand the huge number of docs
and tutorials that are written with Objective-C in mind.

Obviously I can't speak for other bridge authors, but when I wrote CamelBones
I did *not* intend it to be a replacement for Objective-C. The intent was
(and is) to make an additional option available for when it's needed. Options
are good - the more languages you're capable of using, the better equipped
you'll be to choose the most appropriate one for a given task.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

On 30/5/06 05:27, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> simmer26 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> http://pyobjc.sourceforge.net
>
> Anyone here used RubyCocoa?
> http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/

Only for 'toy' apps so far, because I haven't yet had the time to spend
learning Ruby as much as I want to (it looks like a great interpreted
language for an ObjC-head). However, while we're bandying around
sourceforge URLs, may I recommend:

http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

In article <1149020338.584995.129360.RemoveThis@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
grubertm.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky.

I might suggest that where you wrote "clunky" it might be better to say
"different from what I'm used to." It's actually quite elegant, but the
paradigm's a significantly different from what a lot of developers are
used to and the syntax was developed (before Obj-C, I should point out)
partly to highlight that difference.

So, having said that, I'd recommend giving it a bit more of a chance
with the recognition that it really is something new and not just a
gratuitously different way to write the same old stuff.

--
"Congurutulation!!!" - The subject line on some spam I received recently.
I have no idea what it means, but it's such a cool "word" (by which I mean
pronouncable sequence of letters) regardless.

On 30/05/2006, grubertm DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote in message
<1149020338.584995.129360 DeleteThis @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky.

It might seem that way if you come from a C++ background but it's not.
You have to somehow forget everything you've learned since C, and then
learn Obj-C from that position. If you find yourself thinking in terms of
C++ features then you've lost the plot.

I have been truly stunned how fast and easy it is to write stuff in
Objective-C + Cocoa. It has given me a hatred of C++ which I don't think
I'll ever overcome.

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <1149020338.584995.129360 DeleteThis @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> grubertm DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>
>> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
>> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
>> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky.
>
> I might suggest that where you wrote "clunky" it might be better to say
> "different from what I'm used to." It's actually quite elegant, but the
> paradigm's a significantly different from what a lot of developers are
> used to and the syntax was developed (before Obj-C, I should point out)
> partly to highlight that difference.
>
> So, having said that, I'd recommend giving it a bit more of a chance
> with the recognition that it really is something new and not just a
> gratuitously different way to write the same old stuff.
>

Isn't the object-oriented part of Obj-C based on Smalltalk's syntax?
Smalltalk was developed by Alan Kay and company to make programming
accessible to kids. Hence the name SMALL-talk...

Alan's still working on Smalltalk, by the way.

http://www.squeak.org

In article <cyJLg.8253$Zm1.4839@dukeread02>,
Lawson English <LawsonE.RemoveThis@nowhere.none> wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> > In article <1149020338.584995.129360.RemoveThis@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > grubertm.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
> >> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
> >> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky.
> >
> > I might suggest that where you wrote "clunky" it might be better to say
> > "different from what I'm used to." It's actually quite elegant, but the
> > paradigm's a significantly different from what a lot of developers are
> > used to and the syntax was developed (before Obj-C, I should point out)
> > partly to highlight that difference.
> >
> > So, having said that, I'd recommend giving it a bit more of a chance
> > with the recognition that it really is something new and not just a
> > gratuitously different way to write the same old stuff.
> >
>
> Isn't the object-oriented part of Obj-C based on Smalltalk's syntax?

Yes, very much so.

> Smalltalk was developed by Alan Kay and company to make programming
> accessible to kids. Hence the name SMALL-talk...
>
> Alan's still working on Smalltalk, by the way.
>
> http://www.squeak.org

Smalltalk was named such because it was originally very SMALL (like
originally written in a page of code).

Cocoa (the name, not the framework), on the other hand, was originally a
system designed for teaching kids how to program developed in Apple's
ATG.

glenn andreas wrote:
> In article <cyJLg.8253$Zm1.4839@dukeread02>,
> Lawson English <LawsonE.TakeThisOut@nowhere.none> wrote:
>
>> Gregory Weston wrote:
>>> In article <1149020338.584995.129360.TakeThisOut@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> grubertm.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
>>>> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
>>>> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky.
>>> I might suggest that where you wrote "clunky" it might be better to say
>>> "different from what I'm used to." It's actually quite elegant, but the
>>> paradigm's a significantly different from what a lot of developers are
>>> used to and the syntax was developed (before Obj-C, I should point out)
>>> partly to highlight that difference.
>>>
>>> So, having said that, I'd recommend giving it a bit more of a chance
>>> with the recognition that it really is something new and not just a
>>> gratuitously different way to write the same old stuff.
>>>
>> Isn't the object-oriented part of Obj-C based on Smalltalk's syntax?
>
> Yes, very much so.
>
>> Smalltalk was developed by Alan Kay and company to make programming
>> accessible to kids. Hence the name SMALL-talk...
>>
>> Alan's still working on Smalltalk, by the way.
>>
>> http://www.squeak.org
>
> Smalltalk was named such because it was originally very SMALL (like
> originally written in a page of code).

No and noway was Smalltalk ever "small" in that sense. It was the first
full featured GUI system, which always requires huge amounts of memory
and code to implement. Here's what Alan Kay says about the name. Note
that Smalltalk grew out of KiddiKomp:

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html

The Early History of Smalltalk

Alan C. Kay
Apple Computer


"In the summer of '71 I refined the KiddiKomp idea into a tighter design
called miniCOM. It used a bit-slice approach like the NOVA 1200, had a
bit-map display, a pointing device, a choice of "secondary" (really
tertiary) storages, and a language I now called "Smalltalk"--as in
"programming should be a matter of ..." and "children should program in
....". The name was also a reaction against the "IndoEuropean god theory"
where systems were named Zeus, Odin, and Thor, and hardly did anything.
I figured that "Smalltalk" was so innocuous a label that if it ever did
anything nice people would be pleasantly surprised."

>
> Cocoa (the name, not the framework), on the other hand, was originally a
> system designed for teaching kids how to program developed in Apple's
> ATG.

Tableau begat KidSim, which begat Cocoa, which begat StageCast. However,
Alan says they abandoned it "early on." He's been working on
Smalltalk-based stuff at Apple, then Disney and now via a private
foundation since forever.

His current research focus is Squeak Etoys programming based on Squeak
Smalltalk.

http://www.squeakland.org/school/HTML/essays/essays.html

In article <6YXLg.8292$Zm1.7174@dukeread02>,
Lawson English <LawsonE.TakeThisOut@nowhere.none> wrote:

> glenn andreas wrote:
> > In article <cyJLg.8253$Zm1.4839@dukeread02>,
> > Lawson English <LawsonE.TakeThisOut@nowhere.none> wrote:
> >
> >> Gregory Weston wrote:
> >>> In article <1149020338.584995.129360.TakeThisOut@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> grubertm.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's not that I find Cocoa particularly challenging- since Borland and
> >>>> MS heavily borrowed from NextStep it's pretty much straightforward. I
> >>>> am just very annoyed by Objective-C which seems clunky.
> >>> I might suggest that where you wrote "clunky" it might be better to say
> >>> "different from what I'm used to." It's actually quite elegant, but the
> >>> paradigm's a significantly different from what a lot of developers are
> >>> used to and the syntax was developed (before Obj-C, I should point out)
> >>> partly to highlight that difference.
> >>>
> >>> So, having said that, I'd recommend giving it a bit more of a chance
> >>> with the recognition that it really is something new and not just a
> >>> gratuitously different way to write the same old stuff.
> >>>
> >> Isn't the object-oriented part of Obj-C based on Smalltalk's syntax?
> >
> > Yes, very much so.
> >
> >> Smalltalk was developed by Alan Kay and company to make programming
> >> accessible to kids. Hence the name SMALL-talk...
> >>
> >> Alan's still working on Smalltalk, by the way.
> >>
> >> http://www.squeak.org
> >
> > Smalltalk was named such because it was originally very SMALL (like
> > originally written in a page of code).
>
> No and noway was Smalltalk ever "small" in that sense.

From the below cited article:

The subject pf power came up and the two of them wondered how large a
language one would have to make to get great power. With as much panache
as I could muster, I asserted that you could define the "most powerful
language in the world" in "a page of code." They said, "Put up or shut
up."



So the core concept of Smalltalk (the language) was small, not resource
requirements of the whole environment built around it.


> It was the first
> full featured GUI system, which always requires huge amounts of memory
> and code to implement.

There was also "TinyTalk" <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=802845>
- a simple implementation design for "a conventional microprocessor such
as a Z80 or 6502" which "actually did fit in 64K bytes with a little bit
of room to spare".


> Here's what Alan Kay says about the name. Note
> that Smalltalk grew out of KiddiKomp:
>
> http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html
>
> The Early History of Smalltalk
>
> Alan C. Kay
> Apple Computer
>
>
> "In the summer of '71 I refined the KiddiKomp idea into a tighter design
> called miniCOM. It used a bit-slice approach like the NOVA 1200, had a
> bit-map display, a pointing device, a choice of "secondary" (really
> tertiary) storages, and a language I now called "Smalltalk"--as in
> "programming should be a matter of ..." and "children should program in
> ...". The name was also a reaction against the "IndoEuropean god theory"
> where systems were named Zeus, Odin, and Thor, and hardly did anything.
> I figured that "Smalltalk" was so innocuous a label that if it ever did
> anything nice people would be pleasantly surprised."
>

I wouldn't interpret that this says "SMALL-talk" (because small kids
would use it to program) so much as "small talk" (as in "polite
conversation about unimportant or uncontroversial matters"), which could
easily be approached by non computer scientists (including children).
But you are right that "small" didn't mean "small resource requirements".


Facinating paper to read, BTW - definitely delves deeper than the
"Smalltalk 80: Bits of History, Words of Advice" (another great book to
read). Thanks for the pointers...