Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OS X Isn't for Developers

zachholman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 252 posts

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#41

Post by guptaneil »

petercooper wrote: post #6
darkhelmetlive wrote: post #2

The few of points I've made about this are: 1. The Xcode 4 download compared to Xcode 3 is basically just a different IDE. The gcc version is, for all intents and purposes, identical. There's nothing stopping anybody from just installing that if all they need is the toolchain. 2. The other big 2 OS's (Windows and Ubuntu) don't have any build tools installed by default either. Granted they are just an apt-get away on…

If I wasn't a dev, I'd be pissed to find out some compiler toolchain IDE gongshow eating up 5-15GB of my disk space Yeah, but the essentials that most command line builds require wouldn't even take up 10% of that. Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need.

Sure, but if you are a dev, installing the necessary tools is a pretty easy and painless thing to do. If you aren't a dev (like most people), why have it installed at all?

Since Snow Leopard, printer drivers are no longer included with the OS either. Instead, they are downloaded through Software Update as soon as you plug a printer in.

Having said that, the fact that Xcode is listed on the Mac App Store instead of just in the developer portal, I suspect that Apple will bundle Xcode 4 with Lion to try to encourage more app development.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#42

Post by jcapote »

k33l0r wrote: post #34
ironchef wrote: post #25

I don't get it. What's wrong with "sudo port install gcc46 ruby19 ruby186"?

Because requiring yet another third party tool is just an extra barrier. And not everyone uses MacPorts anyway, personally I don't want to see MacPorts anywhere near my computer...

Not to mention you need GCC to build GCC

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#43

Post by tvon »

kluikens wrote: post #40
ironchef wrote: post #25

I don't get it. What's wrong with "sudo port install gcc46 ruby19 ruby186"?

Assuming no other available build toolchain (e.g. Xcode 3), you won't have macports installed. How will you compile gcc, ruby if you don't already have a compiler?

Well, I'm pretty sure gcc can bootstrap and self-compile, but I don't know if macports is setup for that.

edit: apparently it's not self-compiling, at least not in the way I was thinking.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#44

Post by teilo »

aeontech wrote: post #12

What a lot of people seem to miss is that Xcode 4 is still a free download on http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ for members of the developer program (which is a free membership).

No, this is wrong. A developer login is free. The developer program costs $99 a year.

You cannot get XCode for free unless you have ponied up your $99.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#45

Post by psi »

tylrdotorg wrote: post #32

If you spent 1% of the time you did writing this article researching your misguided accusations you would realize that xcode 4 is free and downloadable for registered (free to register) Apple Developers. Exactly like most Apple tools. It's frustrating seeing all these people accusing apple of charging for XCode when it's really no different than before.

This doesn't actually seem to be the case. I just logged in to my (free) Apple Developer account and got the following message:

-- You must be an iOS or Mac Developer Program member to download Xcode 4 or you can purchase Xcode 4 from the Mac App Store. --

According to http://developer.apple.com/programs/ both the iOS and Mac Developer programs are $99 per year.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#46

Post by teilo »

tylrdotorg wrote: post #32

If you spent 1% of the time you did writing this article researching your misguided accusations you would realize that xcode 4 is free and downloadable for registered (free to register) Apple Developers. Exactly like most Apple tools. It's frustrating seeing all these people accusing apple of charging for XCode when it's really no different than before.

And you tried logging in with a free account and getting it? Didn't think so, because if you had, you would have kept quiet.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#47

Post by inarru »

aeontech wrote: post #12

What a lot of people seem to miss is that Xcode 4 is still a free download on http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ for members of the developer program (which is a free membership).

"for members of the developer program (which is a free membership)."

no, it's only free for members of the paid developer program. free members who try and download it are given a link to the appstore or an option to purchase the yearly membership.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#48

Post by holman »

tvon wrote: post #8
holman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't arguing that Xcode is expensive. I'm arguing that the barriers to entry are pretty offensive if you need the capabilities of only gcc. An hour-long process involving credit cards isn't very nifty.

It doesn't involve credit cards as xcode 3 is still freely available. If Apple does not include the developer tools on the Lion DVD, and if they remove all free versions of xcode for download, then I don't doubt someone will package up the "build essentials" for OSX and make them available. To date there has been no reason to do this, but if there is a reason, there is nothing preventing it that I am aware of. edit:…

Xcode 3 doesn't solve the issue of it being a real pain in the butt to install. gcc by itself is much, much smaller and much less of an issue for a casual user to install.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#50

Post by sid0 »

k33l0r wrote: post #39
sid0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, why not just ship binaries? Needing to install a compiler separately seems like far too high a barrier already.

Because then you'd need to ship binaries for every conceivable platform that your gem could be used on and you'd need to make some pretty fundamental changes to the whole Ruby gem distribution system (this probably applies to other languages and their libraries too).

Because then you'd need to ship binaries for every conceivable platform that your gem could be used on

You don't. You ship binaries for the top 2-3 platforms and provide source for the rest. That's how open source projects have been doing things for ages.

and you'd need to make some pretty fundamental changes to the whole Ruby gem distribution system

Meh, it isn't insurmountable.

Post reply on HN