🚀 go-pugleaf

in article 1119304252.138503.7860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
jonhoyle@mac.com at jonhoyle@mac.com wrote on 6/20/05 2:50 PM:

> But if Metrowerks simply modified their IDE to work with gcc (perhaps
> by creating wrappers around the gcc compilers so as to conform to
> CodeWarrior's Compiler Plugin API), they could sell the CodeWarrior IDE
> rather cheaply (say, $100-$150) and not have to spend any money
> developing compiler updates.  As the gcc compilers are free, they
> should be easily dropped into CodeWarrior to work.  We would then be
> able to build for PPC and x86 again, and not be out of sync with Xcode.
> 
> If this became the new business model, I think it would have a great
> chance of success.

Um, I actually own the Metrowerks product you describe. You even got the
retail price spot on at $150.

... it's CodeWarrior for *Linux*.

Reviews were pretty much 100% favorable, sales were for all practical
purposes nonexistent; it never got updated past the initial release.

So you'd have to append to the above a plausible reason that the exact same
strategy that failed catastrophically for Linux would have dramatically
different results when tried for OS X.

-- 
Alex Curylo -- alex@alexcurylo.com -- http://www.alexcurylo.com/

"It's not that I'm ENCOURAGING drug use ...
 I'm just saying it can do wonders for the ol' writers block."
    -- Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel 

> So you'd have to append to the above a plausible reason that the
> exact same strategy that failed catastrophically for Linux would
> have dramatically different results when tried for OS X.

The first thing that comes to mind is that Linux users aren't used to
buying software like this. They're used to free, open source tools. And
they don't mind the existing free tools. If they did they probably
wouldn't be using Linux in the first place.

Every tool has its market, and the Mac market is a different market
than the Linux market. Still, I think CW would need to do more than
just add support for gcc compilers. More to the point, CW users will
want more than the same old thing we've gotten for the past 3-4 years,
which is improvements limited to keeping the product useable and no
innovations. Just switching to using gcc compilers would keep CW
limping along again. They've already killed the cross-platform
advantage, and if they lose their compiler advantage then they better
have something else mighty nice to offer.

Larry

I agree with you, Larry.  If Metrowerks reintroduced just their IDE
bundled with compatible versions of gcc PPC and gcc x86, all of which
ran natively on Mac OS X, heck I'd pay $150 for that!

Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak

In article <1119361267.275026.235150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "jonhoyle@mac.com" <jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with you, Larry.  If Metrowerks reintroduced just their IDE
> bundled with compatible versions of gcc PPC and gcc x86, all of which
> ran natively on Mac OS X, heck I'd pay $150 for that!

You might, but how many others would follow? How many copies of 
CodeWarrior for Macintosh on this basis would Freescale/Metrowerks need 
to sell in order to break even?

It strikes me, by the way, that you and Larry are not in agreement. 
Larry seems to require far more from CodeWarrior than you do.

Now that we have the free Xcode, CodeWarrior is a premium product. To be 
popular, it needs a unique selling point. A superior PowerPC compiler 
and C++ library seem to be in CodeWarrior's favour at this time. If they 
are to continue selling the product, I see no reason for them to abandon 
these two.

Now, if they were able to introduce the Intel compiler well ahead of 
Apple, that would be a major coup. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.


Alwyn

<jonhoyle@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1119361267.275026.235150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I agree with you, Larry.  If Metrowerks reintroduced just their IDE
> bundled with compatible versions of gcc PPC and gcc x86, all of which
> ran natively on Mac OS X, heck I'd pay $150 for that!
>

What support would this have for debugging, particularly remotely on x86?
How about the ability to run the CW9 versions of their compilers? All that
would require is not changing the plugin interface, which there isn't much
reason to do anyway.
I could care less about 64 bit code, could live w/ gcc, but high quality
debugging is important.

Paul

Alwyn  wrote:

>Now, if they were able to introduce the Intel compiler well ahead of 
>Apple, that would be a major coup. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Apple already has an Intel compiler. Download Xcode 2.1 from ADC.

In article <akXte.712$N22.185@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
 bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Now, if they were able to introduce the Intel compiler well ahead of 
> >Apple, that would be a major coup. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
> 
> Apple already has an Intel compiler. Download Xcode 2.1 from ADC.

According to Intel:
Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for 
Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, 
Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple 
and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.
<http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm>

Suppose Freescale were able to negotiate a deal with Intel so that the 
compiler were available with CodeWarrior first. That would really raise 
the product's profile.

Do I think it will happen? Of course not!


Alwyn

> agree with you, Larry.  If Metrowerks reintroduced just their IDE
> bundled with compatible versions of gcc PPC and gcc x86, all of which
> ran natively on Mac OS X, heck I'd pay $150 for that!

I probably would too. To be honest, I'd rather not learn Xcode. I
haven't particularly liked it when I've played with it. And I sure
don't look forward to porting my project to Xcode. That said, if that's
the future, I might as well get it over with as soon as I have some
time to devote to it.

I'm not sure I'd pay MW just to keep CW's last foot out of the grave.
More to the point, while I dislike Xcode, I *really* dislike being in
the dark with CW. I'm one of those people who likes to know where he's
going, and the kind who hates not even being able to form a plan
because I don't have enough information. Right now my (our) two options
are to abandon CW, or wait and see if we'll have no choice but to
abandon CW. That's not a place I like being and I'm pretty sure I won't
be paying MW to keep me in that place, wondering from release to
release if it's the last release.

Now, if they show a real commitment to CW, I'll support it.

Larry

> You might, but how many others would follow? How many copies of
> CodeWarrior for Macintosh on this basis would Freescale/Metrowerks need
> to sell in order to break even?

That would depend on what MW could deliver in CW. If it's just the same
old old IDE with a dated interface but using gcc, that's not going to
fly. If MW can bring it up over time to a state of the art development
tool that go toe-to-toe with Xcode in most respects and beat it in
others as it does now with compile speed, code quality, and STL, then
it might stand a chance *if* MW can convince people they're in it for
the long haul.

> It strikes me, by the way, that you and Larry are not in agreement.
> Larry seems to require far more from CodeWarrior than you do.

Probably so. I think most people will.
>
> Now that we have the free Xcode, CodeWarrior is a premium product. To be
> popular, it needs a unique selling point. A superior PowerPC compiler
> and C++ library seem to be in CodeWarrior's favour at this time. If they
> are to continue selling the product, I see no reason for them to abandon
> these two.

Well, I would have thought that about their Windows cross-platform
capability too. ;-)
>
> Now, if they were able to introduce the Intel compiler well ahead of
> Apple, that would be a major coup. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Not at all likely. I would assume they're working on this in
cooperation with Apple, so it's not going to show up at MW first.

Larry

In article <1119430301.796216.166350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 larry@skytag.com wrote:
> 
> > Now that we have the free Xcode, CodeWarrior is a premium product. To be
> > popular, it needs a unique selling point. A superior PowerPC compiler
> > and C++ library seem to be in CodeWarrior's favour at this time. If they
> > are to continue selling the product, I see no reason for them to abandon
> > these two.
> 
> Well, I would have thought that about their Windows cross-platform
> capability too. ;-)

Oh, I think the answer to that is that they needed the money. The Nokia 
cash lets them stumble along for a while longer. I've no doubt they'd 
sell CodeWarrior for Macintosh too, if only they could find a buyer. 
They are stuck with it, and as everyone here has been complaining, what 
they will do with it now is anyone's guess.


Alwyn

Jonathan & all,

I would like to introduce an opposite view:

Metrowerks belongs to Freescale.

Like any processor manufacturer, Freescale needs to maintain a compiler
for their processors.
Now that Apple uses chips from a competitor (Intel) Freescale has no
motivation to maintain an IDE for Apple OSes.

However, we the CodeWarrior users, have motivation to maintain and
better the IDE.

Solution: Metrowerks will Open source the IDE, PowerPlant, Plugin SDK,
and keep the compiler closed source.

Users would buy the compiler from Metrowerks ($150, anyone?) and
download the IDE.
Mertowerks would make money from a compiler they would anyway maintain.

Overtime we, the IDE users, could add to the IDE support for gcc
(targeting Intel), and continue to use the environment we know and
love.

Shai Shasag
Waves Audio