OS X Isn't for Developers • Hacker News Board

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#141

Post by NumberFiveAlive » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

CountSessine wrote: post #127

NumberFiveAlive wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per your point #3: I spend a lot of time in both Windows 7/VS2010 AND OSX/XCode (along with a smidgen of time in Ubuntu as well) and crashes are just about a thing of the past in all three environments. That said, Xcode/OSX gives me the spinning beach ball of death at least as much as I get a crash to desktop in W7 and far, far more often than I get a BSOD in W7. The idea that windows crashes a lot is a myth hanging…

As for the polish comment, it's really a matter of what you're used to and strictly a matter of opinion, but I find Xcode a nightmare to navigate compared to VS2010. Sure, Xcode is shinier and looks better, but the UX is far superior in VS2010 (again, just my opinion). I'm very much looking forward to a single window interface in Xcode 4.3. Oh dear - you haven't been using the multiple-window layout in Xcode 3, have…

I'm definitely going to give it a look. For some reason I thought the single window layout wasn't coming till this version.

The multiwindow layout wouldn't be so awful if OSX were better at windows management && I had more than one monitor to work with on my iMac. As it is, it's a struggle for me.

Oh, and who knows about the downvotes. I thought for sure I'd get nuked for defending VS. Have an upvote.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#142

Post by ironchef » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 1:53 AM UTC

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?

Got it...thanks. I didn't get that he was talking about the bootstrapping issue.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#143

Post by angrycoder » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 1:56 AM UTC

fierarul wrote: post #100

zzzmarcus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP isn't complaining about the price, or at least not principally. He's complaining about the 4gb download, the 15gb of HDD and the time of installing Xcode just to get gcc. The price is just another barrier to entry to add to the list before you're up and running.

Well, technically this Xcode doesn't come just with gcc, it has the iOS SDK too. For example, on my machine I see this: du -h -d 1 /Developer/Platforms/ 10M /Developer/Platforms//MacOSX.platform 4.4G /Developer/Platforms//iPhoneOS.platform 4.2G /Developer/Platforms//iPhoneSimulator.platform 8.5G /Developer/Platforms/ Of the 10GB the /Developer folder takes, about 8GB are the iOS stuff. It seems normal they would bund…

You are missing the point, the only way to get gcc on your mac is to install some version of Xcode.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#144

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:04 AM UTC

holman wrote: post #60

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.

I'll pay $100 for Xcode and not use it and not even care. We're not the point. It's the casual users that want to get into a library that I'm concerned about. That want to use a C library on their machine. That want to use ImageMagick in their PHP site. Those are the ones that an unavailable gcc hurt the most.

[deleted]

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#145

Post by DougBTX » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:07 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #124

nivertech wrote: post #95

Isn't gcc a GPL? How can Apple not distribute it?

First, Apple does make the GCC source available: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ Second, Apple doesn't ship GCC in the default install, why would they need to make it the source available?

Also, the download via http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-324/ includes a built version of gcc, i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#146

Post by kinofcain » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:08 AM UTC

statictype wrote: post #88

thought_alarm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about iTunes? Why don't they have to charge for iTunes?

Perhaps because they can claim iTunes, because of the iTunes Store isn't an end-product so much as a platform upon which people make purchases. They can account for the revenue from the greater iTunes app through each purchase you make in the store. Same goes with the App Store.

Not sure how they deal with people who never purchase anything, but perhaps they don't have to be 100% thorough about it.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#147

Post by diamondhead » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

matt2224 wrote: post #138

diamondhead wrote: post #131

I agree with the title, but am not interested at the OSX / XCode stuff because I'm a very happy, satisfied Linux & Lenovo user. My old company tried to force me to use a Macbook Pro, saying "developer community uses it", and I refused, saying "I give no piece of .... to a software with stupid and pretty looking icons, windows etc." because that stuff requires us to use mouse/touchpad stuff, which are useless, time wa…

Well this is just trolling.

Guess it is, but as I pointed, there are companies forcing its folk to use OSX for development because it's popular around the developer community. I think OSX is a multimedia software with unix base.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#148

Post by DougBTX » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:21 AM UTC

dubious_1 wrote: post #77

kstenerud wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, what you are actually saying, is that this is the cheapest major upgrade to XCode that's ever been released?

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#149

Post by teyc » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:23 AM UTC

OS X won marketshare not because it won developers from Windows.

Macs were already popular with web designers, but people who write the backends were programming against linux.

By making Macs run on Unix, it initially took marketshare away from people who were installing Linux on commodity laptops.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#150

Post by dizm » Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 2:45 AM UTC

zenocon wrote: post #67

otterley wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of "XCode 3 is still free" do you not understand?

Honestly, every time I see one of these articles with even a hint at criticism towards Apple, I cringe slightly before I click the comments link...because I know what's coming next. Not that you care, but I'm also tired of Apple hi-jinks, T's & C's, and just general unfriendliness toward devs and I'll stick with Win7/Ubuntu from now on.

Right, because Windows comes with gcc?