Mailing List Message #9581
From: Global Homes Webmaster <>
Subject: Re: Carbon terminology
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:09:35 -0800
To: <>
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.8 (Bluto)
On 11/10/01 at 11:39, Bill Cole wrote:

> At 12:11 PM -0800 11/7/01, Global Homes Webmaster  imposed structure
> on a stream of electrons, yielding:
> >On 11/07/01 at 14:59, David Muszynski wrote:
> >
> >> Global Homes Webmaster imposed structure on a stream of electrons
> >> yielding:
> >>
> >>  > carbonating SIMS
> >>
> >> Yeah, every time I get too close to OS X native apps they tickle my
> >> nose. ;-)
> >
> >Even the Cocoa ones?  8^)  I've been quietly using 'carbonate' rather
> >than 'carbonize' because I prefer a term with positive connotations
> >over one that evokes images of things like fouled spark plug points
> >and charred timbers.
> But that is sure to annoy those of us with too much chemistry in our
> heads. The metaphor for carbonizing is pretty good as what you do to
> an app in porting it to Carbon (i.e. you can get a long way by just
> burning away problem pieces) plus of course 'carbonating' is quite
> different from 'carbonizing' and involves carbon dioxide, not simple
> carbon.

OK, OK, so maybe 'carbonate' isn't the better term if you're looking for a
strict analogy, which I wasn't. I was just trying to interject a little levity
into the list. And I still think 'carbonate' is 'friendlier' than 'carbonize.'
Still, carbonation isn't really all that bad a metaphor. After all, when a
Classic app is ported to Carbon, you may be 'burning off' the 'bad' archaic
bits, but you're also, in a sense, adding (like adding CO2) the ability to
take advantage of the new 'good' stuff in OS X. As with most analogies,
though, neither metaphor will likely hold up very well if carried too far.

> >Carbonated and Cocoa apps may rot your teeth, but at least you'll
> >enjoy using 'em.  8^)  At least no one is trying to claim that OS X
> >has moved us into a 'Carboniferous Era.'  ;-)
> I've seen that written...
> In fact the Carbon vs. Cocoa connotation is pretty good. Carbon (the
> API set) is in existence as a necessary evil, not a really positive
> advancement in programming tools. It's a way to make apps written to
> what is at its core a 1984 single-tasking OS easily portable to a
> modern multitasking OS. No one should be writing new apps on Carbon:
> it's a hack needed to address a short-term need, not a grand design.
> Carbon is properly not all that appealing.

No argument, I would certainly agree that Cocoa is the more desirable API for
new OS X apps.

                   Christopher Bort |
            Webmaster, Global Homes |
      <> | PGP public key available on request
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster