🚀 go-pugleaf

Amen.

Anyone know of any decent IDEs I can run on the mac?  And if you tell
me xcode, you're getting a swift kick to the balls.

>> Anyone know of any decent IDEs I can run on the mac?  And if
>> you tell me xcode, you're getting a swift kick to the balls.

Make it two kicks.

Unfortunately, (and far from "decent"), Xcode is the only Mac C++
compiler which builds universal binaries, and for that reason, the only
one worth talking about right.

If you are not tied to C++ though, there are other alternatives.

For Java developers, IDEA by JetBrains [ http://www.jetbrains.com ] is
the best out there, with a fairly reasonable user experience.  It does
run $499 though.  For a free Java IDE, Eclipse is not too bad either [
http://www.eclipse.org ].  I am even told that Eclipse will wrap gcc
(the compiler on the Mac used for Xcode), so it might possibly give you
C++ capabilities too.  In any case, your Java code will run natively on
Intel (no Rosetta), so it is a do-able approach.

For Basic, REALbasic is really very nice.  Now, before you poo-poo
Basic, remember that REALbasic (like its cousin Visual Basic) is a very
mature and powerful development environment.  This isn't your father's
Basic.  Unfortunately, I think the user experience has taken a major
step back after the REALbasic 2005 release last summer, so (if you're
like me), you'll prefer REALbasic 5.5.  The Standard Edition is $99,
and the Pro version, which is cross-platform, runs $399.  REAL Software
has promised to be able to build universal binaries with an upcoming
release.

There are many other options available for the Mac developer, but in
all honesty, none of these compares to CodeWarrior.  I am afraid that
any choice you make will not be a satisfying one, but what other
options do we have?

:-(

Jonathan Hoyle
macCompanion

Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
> >> Anyone know of any decent IDEs I can run on the mac?  And if
> >> you tell me xcode, you're getting a swift kick to the balls.
>
> Make it two kicks.
>
> Unfortunately, (and far from "decent"), Xcode is the only Mac C++
> compiler which builds universal binaries, and for that reason, the only
> one worth talking about right.

Xcode is the IDE. The compiler is gcc, which means you can use any IDE
you like. Personally, I use Eclipse for everything and prefer it to
Xcode. It's fine for any language, although I don't happen to write
much Carbon, or any Cocoa, and I don't much use symbolic debuggers, so
I can't comment on Eclipse's performance in that area for OS X
(debugger works fine on Linux).

>
> If you are not tied to C++ though, there are other alternatives.
>
> For Java developers, IDEA by JetBrains [ http://www.jetbrains.com ] is
> the best out there, with a fairly reasonable user experience.  It does
> run $499 though.  For a free Java IDE, Eclipse is not too bad either [
> http://www.eclipse.org ].  I am even told that Eclipse will wrap gcc
> (the compiler on the Mac used for Xcode), so it might possibly give you
> C++ capabilities too.  In any case, your Java code will run natively on
> Intel (no Rosetta), so it is a do-able approach.
>
> For Basic, REALbasic is really very nice.  Now, before you poo-poo
> Basic, remember that REALbasic (like its cousin Visual Basic) is a very
> mature and powerful development environment.  This isn't your father's
> Basic.  Unfortunately, I think the user experience has taken a major
> step back after the REALbasic 2005 release last summer, so (if you're
> like me), you'll prefer REALbasic 5.5.  The Standard Edition is $99,
> and the Pro version, which is cross-platform, runs $399.  REAL Software
> has promised to be able to build universal binaries with an upcoming
> release.
>
> There are many other options available for the Mac developer, but in
> all honesty, none of these compares to CodeWarrior.  I am afraid that
> any choice you make will not be a satisfying one, but what other
> options do we have?
> 
> :-(
> 
> Jonathan Hoyle
> macCompanion

I've used eclipse extensively, and its exactly what codewarrior wasn't:
slow, heavy, gold-plated, and weak on what's important.

The symbolic debugging (even in java) is rather toyish, the symbolics
support was barely usable on a modern mac (1.25 GHz g4, 2gb ram, again,
java), and the whole thing was just flaky.

Well, I guess I'm back to bbedit for editing, and xcode for building.
Bleh.

In article <1147889232.031191.42160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
 "Jonathan Hoyle" <jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:

> http://www.eclipse.org ].  I am even told that Eclipse will wrap gcc
> (the compiler on the Mac used for Xcode), so it might possibly give you
> C++ capabilities too. 

That's the CDT plugin for Eclipse.  It works rather well as long as what 
you developing is straight console applications (and you can stand MDI 
application; I just hate it).  Getting, say, an OpenGL app to compile 
takes a bit more work.  I haven't managed to compile projects that use 
custom libraries, but then I haven't tried very hard.

Pros:  - free
       - active community
       - Java and C++
       - many more plugins in development
       - it's not going to disappear in the foreseable future

Cons:  - MDI
       - a very "busy" interface.  Lots of space occupied by buttons
         that you use maby 0.01% of the time
       - does not seem to have anything equivalent to CW's source trees
       - as a consequence it seems that projects use a lot of hard
           paths and therefore cannot be moved around from one computer
           to another
       - it does not seem to be possible to make multi-target projects
       - getting the compiler to find the header files and libs you 
           want it to use can be an exercise in frustration.

I would be willing to put up with most of the cons if Eclipse had a
non-MDI mode.


jyh.

-- 
=====================================================================
 jean-yves herve'                    /\
 Department of Computer Science      \/   e-mail --> jyh@cs.uri.edu
             and Statistics          /\  
 University of Rhode Island          \/     Tel. --> (401) 874-4400
 Kingston, RI 02881-0816             /\     Fax. --> (401) 874-4617
 USA                                 \/
=====================================================================

A sad state of affairs.  I only wished that Apple had simply purchased
it so that they could integrate it into Xcode.  (Or better still, offer
it as an alternative IDE to wrap gcc.)  Alas, the deed is done.

I have been using Xcode 2 now for nearly a year now and am slowly
getting adjusted to it.  Key to my limited success so far has been in
using the CodeWarrior-like "Condensed View" (their default and
all-in-one view options are unacceptable).  It allows me to have a
separate project window, double-clicking each source file opens up in a
separate window, etc.  If you wish to do the same, remember to use the
Metrowerks Compatible key bindings and shut off that damn Zero-Link
setting.

It still isn't as nice an environment.  The header file drop down list
(which took me a while to find) doesn't include system headers, you
have to include the class headers (sometimes anyways), and the debugger
is extremely limited in comparison.