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

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#221

Post by ahlatimer »

zppx wrote: post #159
bonch wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need. No, they didn't. For example, Snow Leopard downloads printer drivers from Apple as you need them.

Extra languages are still there though. But I think this is good, mom uses her Mac Mini in Hebrew, my account uses English, dad uses our native Portuguese (I live in Brazil).

You likely don't need printer drivers or a developer tool chain to get your computer set up enough to connect it to WiFi or ethernet. You probably do need different languages if the one the computer defaults to is not one with which you are familiar.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#222

Post by ahlatimer »

mnutt wrote: post #200
Terretta wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is where he loses me. If that person wants to deal with gcc, they're not casual, and spending an hour grabbing latest libs and tools is how they roll, Xcode or no. Any time I'm on CPAN I end up updating 50 other things and 3 hours later wonder what I was looking for in the first place.

I think the point might have been that there are some more casual uses (homebrew, rubygems, python eggs, etc) that aren't as hardcore as writing c but that have gcc as a dependency.

Installing Xcode to get gcc was already a requirement before this. I really don't understand the argument.

Funnily enough, I've never heard anyone mention it before this whole ruckus, even though installing Xcode was a requirement to get gcc in the past. No one has taken the time to build it themselves with the source that Apple gives out for free and host it for those that don't want to install Xcode.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#226

Post by Locke1689 »

mitko wrote: post #180
eddieplan9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your house is not for developers! It did not come with a free computer when you bought it! Even though a computer would only cost as little as 0.2% of the cost of the house, and the previous owner already wasted tons of money on the useless peach trees in the yard.

hm, how come gcc comes for free on lunux, and install is as easy as: >> sudo apt-get install gcc

You try that command in a base Arch install and get back to me. You're basically blaming Apple for not having a package manager, even though that's clearly the responsibility of the community.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#227

Post by Locke1689 »

Wientje wrote: post #217
scott_s wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been long enough that I can't edit what I wrote, but I forgot my history. The first C compiler was grown by modifying a B compiler that was implemented in B. That B compiler, however, was originally implemented in assembly: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html

It kinda makes you think. If we delete all compilers in the world, there would be no easy way to make new compilers. It also means that your compiler on your PC can trace its heritage back to the first machine coed compiler ever written, like life itself evolving from one generation to the next.

You're basically just saying that if you delete all copies of X software in the world it would be really hard to recreate X software.

Anyway, writing a C-- compiler in x86 ASM isn't really that bad. It'd probably be even easier to run the compiler in an interpreter.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#228

Post by yardie »

keen wrote: post #219
younata wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a moot point, because once it's free with lion, then it might as well be free by itself. Apple does nothing to prevent piracy of its dev tools.

Sure, anything's free if you choose to pirate. I was just wondering if they'd make it free for people who don't upgrade to Lion straight away.

Every version of XCode I've used has required the OS it is installed to be the latest one. 3.2 required Snow Leopard, 3.1 required Leopard, and so on and so forth.

4 might not require Lion but you can guarantee that 4.1 definitely will.

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#229

Post by diamondhead »

MobyTurbo wrote: post #209
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…

Hey, Mr. Power User who relies on delicious, you'd better export your delicious bookmarks and take them elsewhere, Yahoo has decided they need to cut corners and is shutting it down.

I already have a copy on my local for dmenu :)

Re: OS X Isn't for Developers

#230

Post by ochronus »

Well you can choose to install the console toolchain from the XCode dmg so you don't waste 15GB. Also what do you mean by "spend a decent amount of time installing xcode"? 5 minutes? 10? Whoa, not a big deal.

Anyway I fully agree that apple should be very quick in releasing a free downloadable compiler toolchain and charge only for the IDE.

Post reply on HN