It's also possible that Xcode 4 is only on the App Store because Lion is going to be on the App Store, and people who buy a physical copy of Lion will get Xcode 4 on the disc.
OS X Isn't for Developers
51–60 of 252 posts
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gems that use C extensions generally build them using native libraries.
That sounds fixable.
No, it's not even remotely fixable. If your extension requires natively compiled code for speed, you need a compiler, period. Going back to forcing developers to cross-compile binaries for every OS under the sun is not what I would call a fix.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#53The 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…
The gcc version is, for all intensive purposes, identical. "for all intents and purposes"
Also heard in the corporate world: "The ownness (sic) is on you" (onus).
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#54Earlier 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.
What part of "XCode 3 is still free" do you not understand?
I was more reacting to the common argument that "$5 is not expensive". My apologies if that's not what they were addressing in this comment.
That said, Xcode 3 doesn't satisfy the requirement of being easy or quick to install for a casual user.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#55If 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.
If you spent 1% of the time you did writing this comment researching your misguided accusations you would realize that xcode 4 isn't free and downloadable for registered (free to register) Apple Developers.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#56It’s possible that this will change before OS X Lion ships, but it’s still a troubling prospect today.
Why is this a troubling prospect today? The Developer tools you need are on your install disk. You did buy the operating system right? Just install them. If you don't have the disc handy at least you have the option of downloading it for free.
You're arguing that spending AN HOUR of your time is offensive. Think of everything you DON'T have to do since it's built into OS X. If that doesn't convince you, then yeah, OS X isn't for YOU - not Developers.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds fixable.
No, it's not even remotely fixable. If your extension requires natively compiled code for speed, you need a compiler, period. Going back to forcing developers to cross-compile binaries for every OS under the sun is not what I would call a fix.
No one's asking anyone to cross-compile binaries for every OS. You compile binaries for the few important platforms and provide source for the rest. As I mentioned in my other reply, open source projects have been doing this for a long while.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#58Argument kinda falls flat. For starters, Xcode 3 is still free, at least for now. No need for Xcode 4. Also, I'm certain that someone will package gcc for mac sooner or later now that there's an incentive to do so. There has not been much incentive to do so before now since it was included with Xcode.
Do you think Xcode 4 will become free at some point? What happens when Xcode 3 is no longer supported or sufficient?
Yes. When Lion is released.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even use Xcode at all. I'd much prefer a `brew install` or even if they had their own *.pkg file or something that was just the toolchain.
So perhaps the answer is to allow Homebrew to bootstrap itself with a basic toolchain if one isn't available. It could even deprecate its toolchain if you later installed Xcode. There's no technical reason why this isn't possible -- the Apple gcc toolchain is, by necessity, available as Open Source. I use Xcode rather a lot, so this isn't a big deal for me, but it seems like a sane answer for "the rest". Sure, you'd…
This sounds absolutely ideal. Homebrew bootstrapping itself using packaged builds of the xcode toolchain which, as someone else mentioned, apple has to provide as it's open source. Homebrew itself is pure ruby, which is already part of the OS.
It could be done as part of the homebrew install process. This would be a step forward for everyone. Most OS X devs use homebrew anyway, and for those that don't use xcode this would simplify things a lot.
I hate downloading that massive DMG. I can't even use wget easily because I have to be authenticated. Who cares about what apple decides to do or not do with the tools the community developed for itself? That's what the licenses are for, people. So we can look after ourselves.
Re: OS X Isn't for Developers
#60Compared 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.