You can install a custom gcc, and then tune gcc_select and its configuration files to support it. It's been while since I've done this, but I did it when I was trying to use a version of gcc that was later than that supported by the most up-to-date Xcode available for OSX Tiger. Worked fine, and worked through Xcode.
OS X Isn't for Developers
211–220 of 252 posts
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I see I keep getting downvoted but I'll bite: why should Apple distribute GCC in some other way?
The subset of people that need GCC on OSX but can't handle the whole XCode is probably pretty small.
Why not try Fink (http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/gcc45 ) instead of expecting Apple to provide that?
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#213I 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…
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…
Quality is in the eye of the beholder. That being said, my Windows 7 workstation crashes at least once a week, as does Visual Studio 2010. I just checked my uptime in my OSX workstation and it has been up for 52 days and I've just had one instance where Xcode crashed. In my eyes (and in my experience), Windows is just not as stable as an OS for development, although it's a lot better than the past crap they've released.
UI wise, I hate VS2010. In my head I cannot fathom why you would say it's UX is better than Xcode, but once again that's personal preference and opinion, which is - of course - respected. I always say: "Use whatever you need to get the job done..."
I do agree completely on what the actual allure of OSX is. My past platform of choice has been Debian, and I always thought it was painful to have to dualboot to be able to do my work (specially when on the move). Enter OSX, which gave me all my unix tools and also runs Photoshop.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#214Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#215Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#216I 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…
My employer makes me use a Mac, but that didn't stop me installing Linux on it.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need an initial compiler for the boostrapping process. Obvious question: how did the first C compiler exist, then? Answer: it was implemented in assembly. And the first assembler was written in machine code.
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.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#218I 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…
Friend of mine who loves VIM recently switched from Ubuntu on PC clone to OS X on MacBook Pro. He doesn't use a mouse for anything, ever. Just because the icons are there doesn't mean you have to click them. Sounds like you just need someone to show you how Mac keyboard customisation works.
You do have to change some keyboard accessibility settings, though, for the interface to be usable without a mouse (dialogs etc.). Out of the box, you can't use OS X with the keyboard alone.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free with Lion, or free by itself?
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.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#220Earlier 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.
That totally outside the scope of this issue, though. If you feel that having to install Xcode to get a gcc install on a Mac, that's fine, but that's the way it's been for a while now. Apple charging for Xcode 4 didn't change that.