Maybe OpenGL is better with apple, but C++ is not. Shoving Nextstep under programmer's throats is really a weird strategy.
No, it is like any vendor that makes developers stick with their own technology. This has been happening in commercial software since the dawn of computing.
And honestly, right clicking with mac, what a nightmare, always bringing the throbber. When I think about it, apple delivers the software that works with the hardware, but the soft is just cool, it's not really nice to work with. Most features comes from unix anyway. While microsoft was hardware agnostic and allowed the computer industry to grow, Apple just comes in with apparatus and just want people to forget the pain of what allowed the computer industry to grow by delivering both soft and hardware.
You can't make programmers learn a language which works in so many different ways, and expect to create a monopoly on such apps. Or maybe it will take time for crowds to forgets C++ and use cocoa.
Besides, the fact windows has non portable code, doesn't mean OSX should too. Especially if it uses unix as a base.
Did you ever wrote portable GUI applications across UNIX systems using only UNIX standards?
> XWindows and OpenGL are not part of POSIX.
I don't really care about POSIX, I care about being able to recompile apps for a new OS, without having to rewrite core parts or change the design. I guess people would start to make new apps for the sake of apple.
And by the way, what's the point of Cocoa compared to other existing things ? Is GUI programming that much important, now that everybody is using html and js ? Is it worth changing the wheels for the sake of a language paradigm ? At the kernel level, I don't see why there's a need for cocoa.
All C++ compilers have vendor extensions.
C++ is great at a lot of things, but interface glue is not one of them.
congressmen ! Seriously ?
> [your preferred development stack] sucks
I don't prefer anything, but making things work between systems is a pain, and I thought portable languages were the thing that allowed those systems to run the same programs.
I just think that trashing portions of technologies that worked on other systems, is debatable.
> Clearly, [vendor of your preferred development stack] should go spend many years rewriting everything so that my mind can continue living comfortably in the box it's in, safe from the pain of having to learn something different.
Yeah, maybe. At the time I adopted Ogre3D, I thought its code would run on any OS. I would really like to know the good reasons that push companies to break backward compatibility. Carbon comes to mind. Most other OSes think backward compatibility is important. But now, we move faster than light, screw the weak ones who won't learn all the new stuff !