# Justify the name "Cocoa"



## WindsorKnot (Nov 2, 2006)

I read somewhere that one of the big wheels on the team that invented Macintosh named it so because that was his favorite kind of apple (a man who had obviously never picked Red Delicious apples in New Hampshire in the fall).  I thought it was neat in 1993 when the Newton was introduced, with another quaintly apple-related name.  In fact it rather got my hopes up that there was more such apt cleverness coming our way.  It hasn't.

Specifically, what is with "Cocoa?"  It seems that with all the genius at that company, they could have come up with something much more pomaceous yes POMACEOUS.


----------



## eric2006 (Nov 2, 2006)

Why _not_ Cocoa? It's warm, it's chocolate, and everyone loves it.

Seriously, though, I don't know why..


----------



## Mikuro (Nov 2, 2006)

Well, is starts with C, so it matches Carbon and Classic. That's about all I can say for it.

I think it was a very odd choice, since Apple _already_ had a development platform called Cocoa. It was not very well-known. I think it was targeted to schools and was somehow related to HyperCard (this was well after the death of HyperCard). I have no idea what's become of that Cocoa. I guess they discontinued it.

I suppose they could have called it AppleStep, which would have better communicated its origins (NextStep). Or they could have kept their original name from the Mac OS X Server days, Yellow Box. But I don't think an API really demands an apple-themed name. They've _never_ given a development technology an apple-themed name.

Personally, I'm more interested in knowing why the iPod was not called the Grannysmith.


----------



## symphonix (Nov 3, 2006)

Mikuro said:


> Well, is starts with C, so it matches Carbon and Classic.



Plus, it integrates with Java. Hance, a beverage themed name was probably appropriate.


----------



## Viro (Nov 3, 2006)

*shivers*

If what it does is integrating with Java... I don't wanna know what not integrating looks like. There's a reason why the majority of Cocoa development is done in Objective-C.


----------



## fryke (Nov 3, 2006)

still I think they _did_ name Cocoa to hint at Java... But seriously: Would "Yellow Box" have been a better name to use?


----------



## RacerX (Nov 5, 2006)

Viro said:


> *shivers*
> 
> If what it does is integrating with Java... I don't wanna know what not integrating looks like.


At the time the name was picked (around 1999) Apple was doing a big push to integrate Java into Yellow Box... including making many of the bundled apps in Java rather than Objective C (for example, TextEdit was done in Java in Yellow Box... though most Rhapsody users have all switch to an Objective C version  ).

Java didn't exist in OPENSTEP or in the OpenStep APIs, which was one of the major changes Apple made when developing Yellow Box (and why it was renamed Cocoa as *fryke* pointed out).


----------



## Viro (Nov 6, 2006)

Well, all I can say is they made a good move switching to Objective-C. Cocoa and Objective-C are made for each other. Cocoa and Java is like an arranged marriage, it can work if you put in a lot of effort....


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 11, 2006)

Arstechnica said:
			
		

> Cocoa
> 
> Previously known as the "Yellow Box", and as the OpenStep APIs before that, Cocoa is the most modern API in Mac OS X. The name change from Yellow Box to Cocoa is yet another horrible computer industry pun centered around the Java programming language. It's meant to highlight the fact that all of the Yellow Box APIs are now accessible via Java as well as Objective C



i have no idea where their sources are, but he seems very sure about it.  these people don't usually make things up...

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macos-x-dp2.ars/3


----------

