🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1115654846.172288.230850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 "jonhoyle@mac.com" <jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:

> Are there any figures on the current marketshare of Macintosh
> development tools, specificly Xcode & CodeWarrior?  Only a few years
> ago, Metrowerks CodeWarrior held a near monopoly on C++ tools, with
> ProjectBuilder in the fractional minority.  However, with Metrowerks
> shooting themselves in the foot these past two years, it's my
> understanding that CodeWarrior has dramaticly fallen and Xcode becoming
> the more popular choice.  Is there any data on this to either
> substantiate or refute this impression?

Certainly the data exist. It may not be trivially accessible, but I can 
say with a fair degree of certainty that it's already compiled.

Why?

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <1115654846.172288.230850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"jonhoyle@mac.com" <jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:

> Are there any figures on the current marketshare of Macintosh
> development tools, specificly Xcode & CodeWarrior?  Only a few years
> ago, Metrowerks CodeWarrior held a near monopoly on C++ tools, with
> ProjectBuilder in the fractional minority.  However, with Metrowerks
> shooting themselves in the foot these past two years, it's my
> understanding that CodeWarrior has dramaticly fallen and Xcode becoming
> the more popular choice.  Is there any data on this to either
> substantiate or refute this impression?

Metrowerks is (I think) a Motorola company, and I figure their CodeWarrior
compilers were a part in the effort of promoting Motorola CPU's. On the
Mac, this is G4 and earlier. The G5 I think is developed by Apple and IBM,
so there is no Motorola interest in promoting that anymore. In addtion,
with Mac OS X using GCC, which is one of the most compliant C++ compilers
around, it will become tough for Metrowerks to upper that, especially as
the Mac OS X developer tools are for free.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-0905052034270001@c83-250-195-154.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
>In article <1115654846.172288.230850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>"jonhoyle@mac.com" <jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Are there any figures on the current marketshare of Macintosh
>> development tools, specificly Xcode & CodeWarrior?  Only a few years
>> ago, Metrowerks CodeWarrior held a near monopoly on C++ tools, with
>> ProjectBuilder in the fractional minority.  However, with Metrowerks
>> shooting themselves in the foot these past two years, it's my
>> understanding that CodeWarrior has dramaticly fallen and Xcode becoming
>> the more popular choice.  Is there any data on this to either
>> substantiate or refute this impression?
>
>Metrowerks is (I think) a Motorola company, and I figure their CodeWarrior
>compilers were a part in the effort of promoting Motorola CPU's. On the
>Mac, this is G4 and earlier. The G5 I think is developed by Apple and IBM,
>so there is no Motorola interest in promoting that anymore. In addtion,
>with Mac OS X using GCC, which is one of the most compliant C++ compilers
>around, it will become tough for Metrowerks to upper that, especially as
>the Mac OS X developer tools are for free.

I just stopped by www.sec.gov.  Has Metrowerks filed an annual report in 
the last six years?  I couldn't find one.

-- 
"The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its 
desirability." -- Gumperson's Law

<jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:

>
>Are there any figures on the current marketshare of Macintosh
>development tools, specificly Xcode & CodeWarrior?  Only a few years
>ago, Metrowerks CodeWarrior held a near monopoly on C++ tools, with
>ProjectBuilder in the fractional minority.  However, with Metrowerks
>shooting themselves in the foot these past two years, it's my
>understanding that CodeWarrior has dramaticly fallen and Xcode becoming
>the more popular choice.  Is there any data on this to either
>substantiate or refute this impression?

I think the data may be skewed. Xcode and Apple's developer tools are available
with every Macintosh sold, and every version of Mac OS X sold.

I'd also think that there's only two companies tracking it (the ones providing the tools), and neither make a big deal about the numbers. Could this mean it's even?

- GCC is far from perfect. The potential is there for Metrowerks to do
better. In fact, I think CW *is* better than Xcode, at least for me.

- CW isn't just a compiler, it's a full-blown development environment.

- Unless I'm mistaken, Apple's view of the world will prevent Xcode
from ever completely addressing everyone's Mac development needs. Apple
view tends to be that no one needs to develop anything for any OS other
than the latest release of Mac OS X, and it shows in their tools. For
example, an application built in Tiger with Xcode using GCC 4.0 will
not run on any release of Mac OS X prior to 10.3.9.

- Metrowerks was doing CW long before Motorola bought them.

- To be more accurate, Metrowerks is owned by Freescale Semiconductor.

- As for the numbers, numbers mean nothing to me. If I wanted to follow
the crowd, I'd use Windows. I want to use the best, and for me, at this
time and hopefully for some time to come, that's CodeWarrior.

In article <d5oj81$8f0$3@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
 glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

> I just stopped by www.sec.gov.  Has Metrowerks filed an annual report in 
> the last six years?  I couldn't find one.

Metrowerks is a subsidiary of Freescale.  I don't know the details of 
their ownership arrangement, but it's unlikely they're filing their own 
SEC reports.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0:  Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/

In article <1115732218.325895.12630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 larry@skytag.com wrote:

> - Unless I'm mistaken, Apple's view of the world will prevent Xcode
> from ever completely addressing everyone's Mac development needs. Apple
> view tends to be that no one needs to develop anything for any OS other
> than the latest release of Mac OS X, and it shows in their tools. For
> example, an application built in Tiger with Xcode using GCC 4.0 will
> not run on any release of Mac OS X prior to 10.3.9.

That's just the default; it's almost trivially easy to change a 
project's settings so that this restriction does not apply.  It does 
mean using gcc 3.3 instead of 4.0, but 3.3 is included with XCode, so 
it's all right there waiting to be used.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0:  Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/

In article <1115732218.325895.12630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 larry@skytag.com wrote:

> - Unless I'm mistaken, Apple's view of the world will prevent Xcode
> from ever completely addressing everyone's Mac development needs. Apple
> view tends to be that no one needs to develop anything for any OS other
> than the latest release of Mac OS X, and it shows in their tools. For
> example, an application built in Tiger with Xcode using GCC 4.0 will
> not run on any release of Mac OS X prior to 10.3.9.

No tool is ever going to completely address everyone's Mac development 
needs, but your rational is mistaken in two points.

a) You can target 10.3.0 with gcc 4 in XCode.
b) While XCode 2 _does_ default to preferring Mac OS X 10.4, the dev 
tools include compilers, libraries and headers specifically to support 
targeting 10.2 and up.

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <1115732218.325895.12630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 larry@skytag.com wrote:

> - Unless I'm mistaken, Apple's view of the world will prevent Xcode
> from ever completely addressing everyone's Mac development needs. Apple
> view tends to be that no one needs to develop anything for any OS other
> than the latest release of Mac OS X, and it shows in their tools. For
> example, an application built in Tiger with Xcode using GCC 4.0 will
> not run on any release of Mac OS X prior to 10.3.9.

No tool is ever going to completely address everyone's Mac development 
needs, but your rationale is mistaken in two points.

a) You can target 10.3.0 with gcc 4 in XCode.
b) While XCode 2 _does_ default to preferring Mac OS X 10.4, the dev 
tools include compilers, libraries and headers specifically to support 
targeting 10.2 and up.

G (superseded to correct a typo)

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <1115732218.325895.12630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 larry@skytag.com wrote:

> - Unless I'm mistaken, Apple's view of the world will prevent Xcode
> from ever completely addressing everyone's Mac development needs. Apple
> view tends to be that no one needs to develop anything for any OS other
> than the latest release of Mac OS X, and it shows in their tools. For
> example, an application built in Tiger with Xcode using GCC 4.0 will
> not run on any release of Mac OS X prior to 10.3.9.

Actually, this has been discussed on the xcode list a lot, and the 
conclusion is: "The 10.3.9 minimum requirement [for apps built with gcc 
4] is ONLY for C++ and Objective-C++ applications. According to the 
document, plain Objective-C [and C] apps built with gcc 4.0 will run all 
the way back to Mac OS X 10.3.0 -- but not on 10.2 Jaguar"

But I believe your point stands Larry, a better example is that XCode 
1.5 does not work on Tiger and XCode 2.0 does not work on Panther.  
Basically, XCode is "part of the OS" it seems. :)

In article <haberg-0905052034270001@c83-250-195-154.bredband.comhem.se>, Hans
Aberg says...

>
>Metrowerks is (I think) a Motorola company, and I figure their CodeWarrior
>compilers were a part in the effort of promoting Motorola CPU's. On the
>Mac, this is G4 and earlier. The G5 I think is developed by Apple and IBM,
>so there is no Motorola interest in promoting that anymore. 

Metrowerks is a Freescale company,  and Freescale still provides chips for Apple
computers,  the laptops and MiniMacs.

>In addtion,
>with Mac OS X using GCC, which is one of the most compliant C++ compilers
>around, it will become tough for Metrowerks to upper that, especially as
>the Mac OS X developer tools are for free.

I have seen reports of independent tests that showed CodeWarrior with a 99+
compliance equal to Intel and EDG based compilers.  GCC is good but not as good.

Ron

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I guess it won't be much of an
issue unless C++ catches on with Mac developers. ;-)

My point was just that Apple's philosophy is that the latest version of
the Mac OS is the only version that deserves first-class support. I
understand why they like that position. It promotes development for the
latest OS and it eliminates the need to invest resources in supporting
multiple versions of the OS. It just doesn't fit everyone's development
needs. Anyone who ever wished he could build a CFM with Project builder
or Xcode understands this. ;-)

Larry

I have to agree with Ron on this one, CodeWarrior's compliance is
pretty near the top of the list.  At the last company I was in, we had
a phone conversation with Apple about their Xcode 1.5 and complained
that their C++ compliance was still lacking.  They acknowledged that
and said that it would improve with Xcode 2.0 and GCC 4.  Now that
Tiger is out, Xcode 2.0 is here and the real test would be to compare
it with CodeWarrior 10 when it is released.  I certainly don't know,
but I'd probably keep my money on CodeWarrior for better compliance.

Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak

In article <1116022026.977954.78300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"jonhoyle@mac.com" <jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:

> I have to agree with Ron on this one, CodeWarrior's compliance is
> pretty near the top of the list.  At the last company I was in, we had
> a phone conversation with Apple about their Xcode 1.5 and complained
> that their C++ compliance was still lacking.  They acknowledged that
> and said that it would improve with Xcode 2.0 and GCC 4.  Now that
> Tiger is out, Xcode 2.0 is here and the real test would be to compare
> it with CodeWarrior 10 when it is released.  I certainly don't know,
> but I'd probably keep my money on CodeWarrior for better compliance.

One should be aware of that the GNU and other stuff that comes with the
installation on Macs are often very old. If one wants to have the latest
version, one has to pick them down, and compile them. This is not so easy
to do with the compiler, which needs hooks to the CPU and the system.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg  wrote:

>One should be aware of that the GNU and other stuff that comes with the
>installation on Macs are often very old. If one wants to have the latest
>version, one has to pick them down, and compile them. This is not so easy
>to do with the compiler, which needs hooks to the CPU and the system.

Pretty funny! gcc 4.0 ships as the default compiler on Tiger (which shipped
April 29). gcc 4.0 was declared final on April 20. Seems like this gotcha is no 
longer applicable.

In article <FFbhe.3167$Y81.1779@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:

> >One should be aware of that the GNU and other stuff that comes with the
> >installation on Macs are often very old. If one wants to have the latest
> >version, one has to pick them down, and compile them. This is not so easy
> >to do with the compiler, which needs hooks to the CPU and the system.
> 
> Pretty funny! gcc 4.0 ships as the default compiler on Tiger (which shipped
> April 29). gcc 4.0 was declared final on April 20. Seems like this gotcha is
> no longer applicable.

This is good, because the compiler is what is used to compile all else.
Apple should take up the strategy to make the latest GCC compiler
available, if they not already have done that.

When I speak bout old stuff, then for example, Bison and Flex are really
old. In order to compile later versions these, one has to update some
other software as well (speaking about what was supplied with Mac OS
10.3). Some stuff is amiss, like TeX, which is used to compile GNU
documents, and help2man, which is used produce manpages. GNU Emacs is not
compiled for X-Windows, it seems. And so on.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article 
<haberg-1405051145590001@c83-250-195-133.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <FFbhe.3167$Y81.1779@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> > >One should be aware of that the GNU and other stuff that comes with the
> > >installation on Macs are often very old. If one wants to have the latest
> > >version, one has to pick them down, and compile them. This is not so easy
> > >to do with the compiler, which needs hooks to the CPU and the system.
> > 
> > Pretty funny! gcc 4.0 ships as the default compiler on Tiger (which shipped
> > April 29). gcc 4.0 was declared final on April 20. Seems like this gotcha is
> > no longer applicable.
> 
> This is good, because the compiler is what is used to compile all else.
> Apple should take up the strategy to make the latest GCC compiler
> available, if they not already have done that.
> 
> When I speak bout old stuff, then for example, Bison and Flex are really
> old. In order to compile later versions these, one has to update some
> other software as well (speaking about what was supplied with Mac OS
> 10.3). Some stuff is amiss, like TeX, which is used to compile GNU
> documents, and help2man, which is used produce manpages. GNU Emacs is not
> compiled for X-Windows, it seems. And so on.

Just use Fink(http://fink.sourceforge.net/), there are nice people 
maintaining patches to make stuff compile and it handles dependencies 
for you so you can get a wide range of opensource software pretty 
easily.  Its true Apple isn't always shipping the latest and greatest, 
but there are usually ways to get what you want without too much effort, 
IMHO.  

FYI, if there is a particular piece you would like Apple to update, you 
should probably log a bug on Radar(http://bugreport.apple.com/).  It 
still may take them awhile for them to change it(or it may not happen at 
all due to some other incompatibility), but otherwise they'll have no 
idea what their customers want.
Micah

In article <FFbhe.3167$Y81.1779@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
 bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:

> >One should be aware of that the GNU and other stuff that comes with the
> >installation on Macs are often very old. If one wants to have the latest
> >version, one has to pick them down, and compile them. This is not so easy
> >to do with the compiler, which needs hooks to the CPU and the system.
> 
> Pretty funny! gcc 4.0 ships as the default compiler on Tiger (which shipped
> April 29). gcc 4.0 was declared final on April 20. Seems like this gotcha is 
> no 
> longer applicable.

It's not so simple.  I'm not in front of tiger right now, but if you go 
to Terminal and type "gcc --version" you will see that Tiger's gcc 4 is 
several months old.  Apple has a pretty significant fork of gcc as I 
understand it, and as someone else said, it is apparently quite hard to 
replace gcc by yourself (I've never tried).

Also, it significant to note that "nothing available as open source on  
Mac OS X 10.4 was built with gcc-4.0" See:
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-dev/2005/May/msg00072.html>

So the Tiger kernel itself isn't even built with gcc 4. :)  Some 
userland stuff might be though.

In article <mk21-D13AD0.07471914052005@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Micah Koch
<mk21@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > When I speak bout old stuff, then for example, Bison and Flex are really
> > old. In order to compile later versions these, one has to update some
> > other software as well (speaking about what was supplied with Mac OS
> > 10.3). Some stuff is amiss, like TeX, which is used to compile GNU
> > documents, and help2man, which is used produce manpages. GNU Emacs is not
> > compiled for X-Windows, it seems. And so on.
> 
> Just use Fink(http://fink.sourceforge.net/), there are nice people 
> maintaining patches to make stuff compile and it handles dependencies 
> for you so you can get a wide range of opensource software pretty 
> easily.  

The Fink stuff is often old, that too, because it has to be adapted for
Mac and Fink. For example, their latest Bison version is 1.35, whereas the
latest is 2.0, which I must use for my needs. The latest Fink version of
Flex is 2.5.31-2. The latest official version of Flex is 2.5.31, available
at http://lex.sourceforge.net/, but it does not compile for Mac. The one
that one takes down from the CVS at http://flex.sourceforge.net/ (note the
subtle use of "f") does compile for Mac OS X BSD, if one also picks down
all the missing stuff.

If one is interested in development on some of these project, it is
necessary to ba able to pick it down and compile it.

> FYI, if there is a particular piece you would like Apple to update, you 
> should probably log a bug on Radar(http://bugreport.apple.com/).

Apple is probably using a deliberate conservative approach, using stuff
they deem safe. But that menas that some aosftware is old. But I think
they should make sure that those tha so want, can pcik down the latest
software and compile it. This means only that the BSD installtion needs to
come with a few more programs.

One can also notice that the docs in the Mac OS X BSD installation is
amiss, only having some cursory manpages. So if one does not have
broadband, one is left out in the cold.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg  wrote:

>One can also notice that the docs in the Mac OS X BSD installation is
>amiss, only having some cursory manpages. So if one does not have
>broadband, one is left out in the cold.

I'm curious; what do you find missing in the man pages? I use them
frequently, and I haven't found missing API man pages. They seem to 
be as usable as Linux and Solaris in my experience.

-Greg

In article <_arhe.4381$Y81.2956@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:

> >One can also notice that the docs in the Mac OS X BSD installation is
> >amiss, only having some cursory manpages. So if one does not have
> >broadband, one is left out in the cold.
> 
> I'm curious; what do you find missing in the man pages? I use them
> frequently, and I haven't found missing API man pages. They seem to 
> be as usable as Linux and Solaris in my experience.

You misunderstood what I said: The man pages are there. But in order to
run many of the programs, one needs the other program documentation as
well. That one is amiss.

-- 
  Hans Aberg