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

71–80 of 252 posts

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#71

Post by eliziario »

sid0 wrote: post #20
holman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end-user needs to have build tools installed on their system if your library uses C. Same for if you want to install some standard system packages like ImageMagick.

... or, you could just ship a binary instead.

Or ok. And what about your dependencies? Let's say you have a dependency on a library that is not shipped with OS X, what do you do? Link it statically and see your tiny gem becoming a monster of a few megabytes? Or do you simply link it dynamically hoping that somehow there will be a binary with the right version lurking somewhere for the user to download. Yeah, that's what happens when you develop OSS for windows. Or do you rely only on native windows libraries that you know will be there for sure, or do you have to compile against the latest version of the library you want to use that happens to have a binary available for windows users to download. Or then, you resort to some strange things like cygwin, MinGw. But didn't we all complained about that when windows was the only somewhat userfriendly OS out there? Didn't we all complained about how much it sucked that you couldn't have a free C compiler chain on windows. Well, now at least on windows you can download the Windows SDK and build code without Visual Studio. If and when Microsoft Windows C/C++ compiler, linker, docs, libs and headers are updated you can have a fresh and free Windows SDK download without having to shell out money to buy Visual Studio, would it be so difficult to apple to unbundle GCC toolchain from XCode and make it freely available?

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#72

Post by e40 »

geuis wrote: post #62

I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra spa…

> Its rather obvious its about SOX.

To you, but obviously not to a lot of us. Please explain.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#73

Post by thought_alarm »

kstenerud wrote: post #68
geuis wrote: post #62

I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra spa…

I don't understand. What does an accounting compliance law have to do with charging for previously free tools? And how were they able to release free tools in the years after 2002? What makes 2011 so special that they are compelled by law to start charging $5?

OS X ships with XCode. Apple has never released a major XCode upgrade in-between OS releases until now.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#75

Post by eliziario »

sabat wrote: post #30

Compared to what other platform? Windows? Developer support out-of-the-box on Windows? Linux, sure, but Linux is since its inception a developer's OS. Mac OS lies somewhere in between. There are many happy developers running OS X, and paying $5 for XCode doesn't make me mad enough to rant. Dude, it's $5. You paid nearly that for Angry Birds.

Not every non-US developer have a credit card. Particularly if you are talking about young students. Windows SDK (That means: Compiler, Linker, Libs, Docs and Headers) is a free download from MSFT site. You only pay if you are a masochist and want to use Visual Studio.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#76

Post by heyrhett »

Steve Jobs wants me to sign up for his service and give him $5 for the privilege of downloading 3.5G to get gcc on my computer now. Didn't we see this coming?

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/10/oh-bitty-box-how-youre-grown...

"So rzr_grl had a zillion zillion files she wanted to download from a web site, using her OSX Mac. First she tries to use this program called Fetch, which is expirey nagware. (And it's just baffling to me that anyone would actually pay for software that does something as basic as "downloading files", but that's beside the point.) ...

So I say, fuck this, I've heard rumors that these are real computers now, just use wget. So I download it, configure… oops, no C compiler. Presumably it was on some CD that she doesn't have here. So we go looking for an OSX binary of gcc. (Brief conversation on how it's possible for compilers to need compilers occurs.) Apparenty the only binaries are on Apple's site, and it takes forever to find it, because their site sucks. Also they make you register in order to download gcc. It's gcc! WTF! "

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#77

Post by dubious_1 »

kstenerud wrote: post #68
geuis wrote: post #62

I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra spa…

I don't understand. What does an accounting compliance law have to do with charging for previously free tools? And how were they able to release free tools in the years after 2002? What makes 2011 so special that they are compelled by law to start charging $5?

Previous major upgrades to XCode released with new versions of OSX and required that newer version to install/run. OSX 10.7 (Lion) has not released yet, so upgrading from 3.6 to 4.0 (Major upgrade) is not considered a maintenance release by Apple's accounting department. Paying members of the Apple Developer network subscribe ($99 per year) and one of the benefits is access to Beta releases of OS and tools. XCode 4.0 was available to members of the Developer network prior to this official release, and after the release, non-subscribers are given access through the App Store. Apple is in no way preventing anyone from developing for Mac at this point since XCode 3.6.5 is still available for download and installation by any users of OSX 10.6 (Snow Leopard), and as evidenced by the availability of the iOS 4.3 SDK for XCode 3.6, they are not forcing anyone to upgrade to the new IDE just to develop for their various platforms.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#78

Post by fierarul »

Wow, that's a long complaint-blog for $5!

The cheapest new mac is $699 and the install DVD comes with XCode 3. Pretty sure new macs will come with XCode 4 preinstalled.

I don't see how this is a problem. Even if you are building a Hackintosh, you're pirating OSX anyhow so pirating XCode too doesn't seem so far fetched.

I have to use iPhoto'08 since that's what my Mac came with. But they just released iPhoto '11! Should I also write a long blog post complaining how Macs are not for normal people that take photos?

XCode is just another app: it costs money to create and maintain and they charge for major revisions. Same as OSX, iLife apps, iWork, etc.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#80

Post by tvon »

holman wrote: post #48
tvon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(edited my comment before I saw your reply)

I agree that a smaller (and free) tool chain would be great, but so far as I know there is nothing preventing anyone from making one.

Related, I realize it is now the case, but when did casual users start needing gcc? Time was, in my pre-OSX days, compiling things yourself if you weren't a dev was seen as somewhat pointless, you just get thousands of users all building the same binary instead of building one binary to be downloaded by thousands of users...

Post reply on HN