Re: Mike and Ward, what next?

Roelf Toxopeus wrote:
> mmm, who says it has to be Cocoa? Is Carbon out?
>
> To be sure we're talking about the same thing when we say Cocoa and
> Carbon:
>
http://developer.apple.com/do***entation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology
>
_Overview/MacOSXOverview/chapter_2_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP4
> 0001067-CH205-TPXREF145

There's nothing wrong with Carbon.  In fact I read an article somewhere
that Carbon was meant as a platform for alternative languages while
Cocoa was meant for Objective-C.  But take a look at this:

http://developer.apple.com/do***entation/Cocoa/Reference/ObjCRuntimeRef/index.html?http://developer.apple.com/do***entation/Cocoa/Reference/ObjCRuntimeRef/ObjCRuntimeRef/chapter_1.4_section_2.html

Basically, you can access the Objective-C runtime using a small handful
of function calls.  I'm assuming that you can access the ObjC
frameworks/cl***** from there.  If that's correct, it would be easier
to build an Objective-C bridge than go through the whole list of Carbon
API calls.

That's the thought anyway.  I would probably defer to anyone with more
extensive experience on this matter.

Erik