Distinguishing between Carbon & Cocoa App from Script

[Adam_Bell]

I remember seeing a method for distinguishing between Carbon and Cocoa apps from a script. I can’t find it – anyone have a clue?

[StefanK]

Hi Adam,

I don’t know, if it’s reliable,
but Carbon apps can have either no package folder or use .rsrc files in Contents/Resources

[hendo13]

You can use this:

do shell script "file /Applications/Calculator.app/Contents/MacOS/Calculator"

It will output its architectures so if its mach-o then its cocoa and if its carbon it will say CFM Binary

(The example I used is the calculator which is cocoa. If you want to try a carbon app it would be something like this:)

do shell script "file Microsoft\ Entourage"

which should return as a CFM Binary

[Adam_Bell]

Thanks Hendo;

Hayne, the UNIX guru over at OSXhints forum, said this: (http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=77408)

@Cameron Hayne

In general, it is not well-defined whether an app is “Carbon” or “Cocoa” since it is quite feasible to use both libraries in one app. It’s sort of analogous to asking if a factory is constructed using Imperial or Metric bolts. It might be true that most factories use one or the other, but it is quite possible for a factory to use metric-sized bolts in one section and imperial-sized bolts in another.

You can look to see what libraries are used by an app by running the command ‘otool -L’ on the application executable.
If Carbon shows up but not Cocoa, it’s a Carbon app. If Cocoa shows up but not Carbon, it’s a Cocoa app. But if both show up, it is ill-defined what you want to call this app.

[StefanK]

@hendo13

It will output its architectures so if its mach-o then its cocoa and if its carbon it will say CFM Binary

hm.

do shell script "file /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app/Contents/MacOS/Finder"
--> Mach-O executable ppc

The Finder is a carbon app

[Mikey-San]

1. What Hayne said. He’s good.

2. This is wrong:

It will output its architectures so if its mach-o then its cocoa and if its carbon it will say CFM Binary

Carbon applications can be Mach-O executables.

3. Why do you really need to know?

[Adam_Bell]

Hayne asked the same question.

I had a bee in my bonnet that Carbon and Cocoa apps scripted slightly differently. Haven’t decided if that’s true yet.

[Mikey-San]

What do you mean by “scripted differently”? The public API-level implementation of adding scripting support to your application, the internal event handling systems, or something else?

[Adam_Bell]

One thing I had noticed was an increasing need to use statements like “set Var to property of (get Object)”, rather than just “set Var to someProperty of someObject”. I wondered if that was an artifact of Cocoa. I have now discovered that one of the apps where this is repeatedly true is Cocoa, but the other is mixed.

[Mikey-San]

One thing I had noticed was an increasing need to use statements like “set Var to property of (get Object)”, rather than just “set Var to someProperty of someObject”.

Gonna need some more context or examples to address this. I mean, if “someObject” is some variable you’ve created yourself, you’ve “gotten” the object already on your own. What’s the real difference? Examples.

[Adam_Bell]

I wasn’t clear M-S. I’m referring to properties of dictionary nouns in some apps. I suspect it has nothing to do with carbon or cocoa, and a lot to do with setting up the AppleScript model.