6 ms·

Notably missing feature: one that allows them to issue a point release to the SDK without making you redownload 3gb of dev environment each time.

by bonaldi 16y ago

wildmXranat 16y ago
I don't understand why they need to do this. Does anyone have a good explanation ?
- mustpax 16y ago
  Deploying a major release as a diff to a complex development environment is far from effortless. They probably figured the effort vs. payoff ratio didn't work out, compared to making improvements to the product itself.
  - someone_here 16y ago
    It's strange to me how products like source control manage this. Why is this different?
    - Groxx 16y ago
      They manage it for typically-small changes. Try computing a patch for the differences between major revisions of a Linux project, and watch how long it takes. Then try to apply it.
    - malkia 16y ago
      With Visual Studio for example, it's not only about merging files, but installing various DLLs (for the runtime - vcredist*.exe), COM objects, .NET stuff, etc. Also creating (if possible) proper uninstalls. VS2008 runs some SQLserver, PDBserver, and who knows what else (run ProcExp and see)
    - Tamerlin 16y ago
      Source control applications don't generally worry about dependencies, and they also generally aren't concerned with multiple projects. Using .NET as an example, the SDK patches would include: Drivers DirectX XNA WPF BackOffice SQL Server (or Express or Lite or whatever they call it) System libraries ASP.NET C# F# ILR C++ .NET VB.NET And the list goes on. Apple's developer kit has a similarly vast suite of libraries and services, I just don't know all of their names. Each one in isolation wouldn't be all that big a deal, but combine them and you have the option of massive downloads or a nightmarish dependency management problem.
  - Glide 16y ago
    I remember having to upgrade VS 2005 to VS 2005 SP1. It took 2 hours to apply the changes. And it was difficult to tell if the updating application froze or was still working. So while patching is nice, it is a huge effort to get it done cleanly.
telemachos 16y ago
I would go further. What I have always wanted is simple: a compiler. I believe that the only way to get one on a Mac is from Apple itself, though I would be happy to take a compiler from a third-party. I don't want to be a Mac dev or an iPhone dev. I don't want their IDE. I want a compiler. So far as I know, the only way to get gcc (or any other compiler) initially onto a Mac is by accepting the entire Xcode package. I'm posting this here because you mentioned the 3GB download, which always makes me cringe. I'm curious to see if anyone knows a better way. (I've had this conversation online in a number of places in the last few years, but never received an alternative.)
- aliston 16y ago
  You don't have to actually install the full xcode IDE. You can do a minimal install of XCode from the installation CD, enough to get the required dependencies, and then install gcc from macports.
  - telemachos 16y ago
    This is not a bad thought, but it runs afoul of Apple's strange choices. If you view the "Custom" install of Xcode, there are five parts: 1. Essentials (1.75GB) 2. System tools (56.8MB) 3. UNIX Dev Support (563.7MB) 4. Documentation (Zero KB - sic! More seriously, it's a download at next boot, hence zero KB of stuff is installed immediately from the disc. Why they don't report the size of the later download, I don't know.) 5. Mac OS X 10.4 Support (Zero KB - again, sic!) By default, 1-4 are selected and 5 is deselected. But here's where it gets interesting: you can only deselect 2-5 manually. 1 is a must. Care to guess where Xcode lives? Here's how Apple describes "Essentials": > Installs Xcode, Interface Builder, Instruments, Dashcode, Quartz Composer, GCC 4.0.1, GCC 4.2.1, llvm-gcc 4.2.1, GDB, and other developer tools. Also installs the Mac OS X 10.5 and Mac OS X 10.6 SDKs. All content is placed inside a location chosen by the user (default is /Developer on the boot volume). I feel like John Belushi in the old "All I wanted was a pony, but nooooooooo" skit.
    - chc 16y ago
      Take a look at CharlesSoft's Pacifist. It gives you a lot more room to stretch.

Notably missing feature: one that allows them to issue a point release to the SDK without making you redownload 3gb of dev environment each time.

by bonaldi 16y ago

Notably missing feature: one that allows them to issue a point release to the SDK without making you redownload 3gb of dev environment each time.

wildmXranat 16y ago

I don't understand why they need to do this. Does anyone have a good explanation ?

mustpax 16y ago
Deploying a major release as a diff to a complex development environment is far from effortless. They probably figured the effort vs. payoff ratio didn't work out, compared to making improvements to the product itself.
- someone_here 16y ago
  It's strange to me how products like source control manage this. Why is this different?
  - Groxx 16y ago
    They manage it for typically-small changes. Try computing a patch for the differences between major revisions of a Linux project, and watch how long it takes. Then try to apply it.
  - malkia 16y ago
    With Visual Studio for example, it's not only about merging files, but installing various DLLs (for the runtime - vcredist*.exe), COM objects, .NET stuff, etc. Also creating (if possible) proper uninstalls. VS2008 runs some SQLserver, PDBserver, and who knows what else (run ProcExp and see)
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    Source control applications don't generally worry about dependencies, and they also generally aren't concerned with multiple projects. Using .NET as an example, the SDK patches would include: Drivers DirectX XNA WPF BackOffice SQL Server (or Express or Lite or whatever they call it) System libraries ASP.NET C# F# ILR C++ .NET VB.NET And the list goes on. Apple's developer kit has a similarly vast suite of libraries and services, I just don't know all of their names. Each one in isolation wouldn't be all that big a deal, but combine them and you have the option of massive downloads or a nightmarish dependency management problem.
- Glide 16y ago
  I remember having to upgrade VS 2005 to VS 2005 SP1. It took 2 hours to apply the changes. And it was difficult to tell if the updating application froze or was still working. So while patching is nice, it is a huge effort to get it done cleanly.

telemachos 16y ago

I would go further. What I have always wanted is simple: a compiler. I believe that the only way to get one on a Mac is from Apple itself, though I would be happy to take a compiler from a third-party. I don't want to be a Mac dev or an iPhone dev. I don't want their IDE. I want a compiler. So far as I know, the only way to get gcc (or any other compiler) initially onto a Mac is by accepting the entire Xcode package. I'm posting this here because you mentioned the 3GB download, which always makes me cringe. I'm curious to see if anyone knows a better way. (I've had this conversation online in a number of places in the last few years, but never received an alternative.)

aliston 16y ago
You don't have to actually install the full xcode IDE. You can do a minimal install of XCode from the installation CD, enough to get the required dependencies, and then install gcc from macports.
- telemachos 16y ago
  This is not a bad thought, but it runs afoul of Apple's strange choices. If you view the "Custom" install of Xcode, there are five parts: 1. Essentials (1.75GB) 2. System tools (56.8MB) 3. UNIX Dev Support (563.7MB) 4. Documentation (Zero KB - sic! More seriously, it's a download at next boot, hence zero KB of stuff is installed immediately from the disc. Why they don't report the size of the later download, I don't know.) 5. Mac OS X 10.4 Support (Zero KB - again, sic!) By default, 1-4 are selected and 5 is deselected. But here's where it gets interesting: you can only deselect 2-5 manually. 1 is a must. Care to guess where Xcode lives? Here's how Apple describes "Essentials": > Installs Xcode, Interface Builder, Instruments, Dashcode, Quartz Composer, GCC 4.0.1, GCC 4.2.1, llvm-gcc 4.2.1, GDB, and other developer tools. Also installs the Mac OS X 10.5 and Mac OS X 10.6 SDKs. All content is placed inside a location chosen by the user (default is /Developer on the boot volume). I feel like John Belushi in the old "All I wanted was a pony, but nooooooooo" skit.
  - chc 16y ago
    Take a look at CharlesSoft's Pacifist. It gives you a lot more room to stretch.