This isn't just an OS thing, though, so I think that's crap. This change is a hardware change that's been forecast for literally years. To dismiss it as "playing catch up with Apple's policies" is nonsense.
You have a point, but another thing to note is that the quality of Apple’s developer docs for audio drivers and CoreAudio has been decreasing. Some major behaviours/quirks of new frameworks like AVAudioEngine on OS X are not documented at all. It’s a lot harder to chase the target than it used to be. This is IMHO one of the likely reasons that MOTU chose to implement as much as possible as an on-device web interface on their newer gear.
As a former MOTU engineer who worked on the software side of the new interfaces, the built-in web server was really about cross-device and multi-user access, not avoiding CoreAudio. We still had to write CoreAudio server plug-ins for Thunderbolt and proxy the web server through the driver as well.
I hear they are planning to update their 32-bit drivers for the older MIDI and audio interfaces with the exception of the PCIe devices. (There are no existing Macs that can run Catalina and the old PCIe interfaces with the exception of the new Mac Pros, but there will be no driver so...)
MOTU just released a statement indicating that they’re only working on new drivers for the hybrid and newer devices. Firewire gear like the popular 828mk3 classic aren’t getting drivers.
AVAudioEngine is not a new framework on macOS. It was first available on macOS Yosemite which was in beta in 2013 and released in 2014. Developers have had 6+ years to develop and test using these frameworks.
This literally just boils down to developers complaining that Apple isn't further letting them procrastinate.
That illustrates the problem though... It’s not a new framework, but the documentation is still poor, and important limitations of it on OS X are not documented at all, years later. (I picked this example specifically because it was a subject of traffic on the CoreAudio mailing list last month.)
Apple expects developers to adopt new technologies, but often never gets around to documenting them well enough to drive adoption. It’s been a real issue for low level audio work on the platform.
"forecast for years" is distinct from "totally a good idea."
Time and resources a software publisher spends on the upgrade treadmill is time they can't spend on other efforts, whether or not there's advance notice. Essentially, it's a cost Apple imposes on developers for their platforms. And either that shows up in costs for users or the software folds.
If there's a counter to upgrade treadmill criticisms, one of the few that makes sense is if there are compelling benefits with the upgrade to weigh against the cost.
At the moment, it's entirely unclear to me what benefits I'm supposed to derive from dropping 32 bit support, and moreover, I can't think of a single compelling benefit I've derived from macOS updates since Snow Leopard.
This distinction does not seem very useful. Regardless of whether it was a good idea, developers had to decide at some point whether they should prepare for the transition or cease macOS development (unless they wanted to continue supporting old versions with a dwindling userbase).
This decision could have been made years ago. It seems to me that anyone complaining the change is too soon or too sudden is forgetting the sheer amount of time they had to decide their best course of action. It should be a question of whether to continue development at all, since that should include a transition to 64-bit. If not, then deprecate the project.
I understand may situations will not be this black-and-white, but it seems like many of them are.
> anyone complaining the change is too soon or too sudden
Notably, that's not my complaint or my point. This isn't about the timing (which is why the distinction was important).
No matter how much time someone has to prepare for a change, there's a cost to making it. And if the benefits of the change don't outweigh those costs for the developer (and the user), then a complaint sure makes sense from those perspectives.
This does intersect the issue of timing, because in a resource-constrained situation, you inevitably have to defer some efforts until they're absolutely necessary (and simply rule out doing others). But timing is not the fundamental issue, cost-benefit tradeoffs are.
> [development] should include a transition to 64-bit.
Why? What's the benefit to ending 32 bit application support?
> This change is a hardware change that's been forecast for literally years.
Huh? What x86 processor doesn’t support 32bit code?
If they move to ARM, everything will get broken, regardless if whether it’s 32bit or 64bit. Is breaking things twice really better than breaking them once?
That's the wrong question to be asking. The relevant hardware change is when x86 CPUs that don't support 64-bit code finally disappeared from the market and eventually from the install base.
There is only a very narrow range of use cases for which running 32-bit code on a x86-64 processor is preferable to running the same code compiled as 64-bit. For everything else, going 64-bit is a clear improvement if not an outright necessity. Even if it didn't require any ongoing maintenance, continuing to ship 32-bit versions means wasting storage space and network bandwidth, and leaving on the table the improvements enabled by going 64-bit (eg. better ObjC runtime). For the entire existence of x86-64 processors it has been clear that retaining 32-bit compatibility through the entire software stack has significant downsides and that the cost/benefit balance has been inexorably moving toward eventually dropping 32-bit support.
