8 ms·

OS X Isn't for Developers

187 points by holman 16y ago

darkhelmetlive 16y ago
The 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 Ubuntu, but it's still something you have to explicitly install. 3. If I wasn't a dev, I'd be pissed to find some compiler toolchain IDE gongshow eating up 5-15GB of my disk space, so not having it by default is probably a good thing. Most people aren't devs. I paid the $5, but I'd still like to see just the toolchain available as a free download, though I still don't think it would be a good thing to have it installed by default.
- petercooper 16y ago
  If I wasn't a dev, I'd be pissed to find out some compiler toolchain IDE gongshow eating up 5-15GB of my disk space Yeah, but the essentials that most command line builds require wouldn't even take up 10% of that. Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need.
  - darkhelmetlive 16y ago
    No doubt, hence why just the toolchain would be awesome. I don't even use Xcode.
  - eddieplan9 16y ago
    Your house is not for developers! It did not come with a free computer when you bought it! Even though a computer would only cost as little as 0.2% of the cost of the house, and the previous owner already wasted tons of money on the useless peach trees in the yard.
    - mitko 16y ago
      hm, how come gcc comes for free on lunux, and install is as easy as: >> sudo apt-get install gcc
      - Locke1689 16y ago
        You try that command in a base Arch install and get back to me. You're basically blaming Apple for not having a package manager, even though that's clearly the responsibility of the community.
  - suchire 16y ago
    Actually I think Snow Leopard stripped out a lot of those extra gigabytes; only a few printers have drivers out of the box now.
  - guptaneil 16y ago
    Sure, but if you are a dev, installing the necessary tools is a pretty easy and painless thing to do. If you aren't a dev (like most people), why have it installed at all? Since Snow Leopard, printer drivers are no longer included with the OS either. Instead, they are downloaded through Software Update as soon as you plug a printer in. Having said that, the fact that Xcode is listed on the Mac App Store instead of just in the developer portal, I suspect that Apple will bundle Xcode 4 with Lion to try to encourage more app development.
  - bonch 16y ago
    > Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need. No, they didn't. For example, Snow Leopard downloads printer drivers from Apple as you need them.
    - zppx 16y ago
      Extra languages are still there though. But I think this is good, mom uses her Mac Mini in Hebrew, my account uses English, dad uses our native Portuguese (I live in Brazil).
      - ahlatimer 16y ago
        You likely don't need printer drivers or a developer tool chain to get your computer set up enough to connect it to WiFi or ethernet. You probably do need different languages if the one the computer defaults to is not one with which you are familiar.
- holman 16y ago
  I'm so down with an apt-get (or in this case, brew install) for build tools. That's really what I'm getting at. It'd be great if it were installed by default, but if it were just accessibile by any means it'd be a massive step up. Most people don't need all of Xcode.
  - darkhelmetlive 16y ago
    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.
    - jsolson 16y ago
      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 still need Homebrew, but that plus a toolchain is a much smaller burden.
      - JonnieCache 16y ago
        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.
  - jaybuff 16y ago
    If there was a package manager for os x that shipped binaries we wouldn't be in this predicament either. brew building from source is just as much to blame as os x not shipping gcc with default install.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- there 16y ago
  The gcc version is, for all intensive purposes, identical. "for all intents and purposes"
  - sabat 16y ago
    Also heard in the corporate world: "The ownness (sic) is on you" (onus).
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
wmoxam 16y ago
Argument 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.
- holman 16y ago
  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.
  - tvon 16y ago
    It doesn't involve credit cards as xcode 3 is still freely available. If Apple does not include the developer tools on the Lion DVD, and if they remove all free versions of xcode for download, then I don't doubt someone will package up the "build essentials" for OSX and make them available. To date there has been no reason to do this, but if there is a reason, there is nothing preventing it that I am aware of. edit: though I agree a smaller "build essentials" tool chain would be nice, but that was the case before you had to pay for xcode and nobody has bothered to create one. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be possible, only that it's probably not worth the hassle of setting it up and maintaining it (though Apple doing it would be excellent).
    - holman 16y ago
      Xcode 3 doesn't solve the issue of it being a real pain in the butt to install. gcc by itself is much, much smaller and much less of an issue for a casual user to install.
      - dunham 16y ago
        Isn't it on the DVD that came with the computer? Double-click to install..
      - 16y ago
upinsmoke 16y ago
gcc version is the same as Xcode 3. Xcode 3 is free at developer.apple.com
joeld42 16y ago
I don't understand? Can't you release the ruby gems or whatever it is as binaries? You only need to spend the $5 if you want to change something, right?
- jarin 16y ago
  Gems that use C extensions generally build them using native libraries.
  - sid0 16y ago
    That sounds fixable.
    - teilo 16y ago
      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.
      - sid0 16y ago
        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.
        teilo 16y ago
        Almost every open source library on my Mac is compiled from source. Name your system: homebrew, ports, fink, they have all switch to compiling from source. Every scripting extension repository I know assumes you have a compiler to compile native libraries for extensions. And this has been true for "a long while". The change you are proposing is not trivial, and it has far-reaching implications. It is a step backwards, and one that every developer should oppose.
- 16y ago
cschep 16y ago
If Xcode 4 is on the Lion disc, I think we're all going to be juuust fine. If it's not, I agree. Fuck. Until then, we don't know!
aeontech 16y ago
What a lot of people seem to miss is that Xcode 4 is still a free download on http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ for members of the developer program (which is a free membership).
- wriq 16y ago
  Free ADC members still have to go through App Store and pay the $4.99.
- darkhelmetlive 16y ago
  Xcode 3 is free, but not 4. Either the developer program, or $5 on the app store.
- teilo 16y ago
  No, this is wrong. A developer login is free. The developer program costs $99 a year. You cannot get XCode for free unless you have ponied up your $99.
  - aeontech 16y ago
    I stand corrected.
- inarru 16y ago
  "for members of the developer program (which is a free membership)." no, it's only free for members of the paid developer program. free members who try and download it are given a link to the appstore or an option to purchase the yearly membership.
rsefer 16y ago
I think the $5.00 is to deter the average user from seeing a free App made by Apple and downloading it, eating up significant bandwidth
- pohl 16y ago
  ...and then calling the support lines asking "why is my disk full?"
- k33l0r 16y ago
  Then why not offer the download for free on developer.apple.com and charge the 5 dollars for the convenience of using the Mac App Store?
benatkin 16y ago
For many types of development, there's this: http://vagrantup.com/ http://vagrantup.com/ It makes VMs free and easier. It uses VirtualBox, an open source VM environment.
- technomancy 16y ago
  This. We've got a mixed team of Ubuntu/Macosecks people, and _nobody_ does actual development work on OS X any more. It's a lot more convenient if your development environment matches your deployment environment. Working otherwise is swimming upstream.
  - nupark 16y ago
    Requiring an exact match between deployment and development is swimming upstream, as you'll quickly introduce unintentional dependencies on specific facets of your host OS. Plus, having to use VMs for development is even worse, why slow yourself down with non-native tooling?
    - benatkin 16y ago
      The way you phrase this makes it a pain to debate, to I'll try saying it a different way first. You give two reasons for not developing inside VMs: * It forces you to deal with different configurations, which results in being able to move between systems more easily. * It's slow. The problem with your argument about dependencies is it invites distraction. The cross-environment difficulties don't happen when you control; they happen on their own schedule. The proper way to make sure things are portable is to have a process for it. As for the performance thing, that may or may not be an issue. It's not wise to just assume it's going to be an issue. Usually a VM is fast enough for development.
terhechte 16y ago
Isn't the llvm toolchain a free download, and doesn't it offer a gcc front end?
ironchef 16y ago
I don't get it. What's wrong with "sudo port install gcc46 ruby19 ruby186"?
- k33l0r 16y ago
  Because requiring yet another third party tool is just an extra barrier. And not everyone uses MacPorts anyway, personally I don't want to see MacPorts anywhere near my computer...
  - jcapote 16y ago
    Not to mention you need GCC to build GCC
    - pohl 16y ago
      Well,you would need some C compiler. You could build FCC with clang.
- kluikens 16y ago
  Assuming no other available build toolchain (e.g. Xcode 3), you won't have macports installed. How will you compile gcc, ruby if you don't already have a compiler?
  - tvon 16y ago
    Well, I'm pretty sure gcc can bootstrap and self-compile, but I don't know if macports is setup for that. edit: apparently it's not self-compiling, at least not in the way I was thinking.
    - fpgeek 16y ago
      Even gcc is not that metacircular. There needs to be some compiler at the bottom of the bootstrapping.
    - scott_s 16y ago
s3graham 16y ago
> You still won’t see PHP installed on Windows any time soon. Not preinstalled because that would be undesirable, but http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx makes it pretty painless to install PHP and a whole whack of that style of crap. Is there a real problem here? It seems like any compiler would do for the problems you're talking about. Yes, someone needs to package it, but I don't see that it really must be Apple.
thought_alarm 16y ago
In the past these kinds of midstream Xcode upgrades were only available to registered developers. So other developers should be grateful that this upgrade is available at all this time. And if 5 bucks is too much for you then I guess you'll just have to continue to use Xcode 3 and wait for Lion.
sabat 16y ago
Compared 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.
- holman 16y ago
  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.
  - redacted 16y ago
    It's the casual users that want to use ImageMagick in their PHP site?! No offence intended, but I think we have different definitions of "casual user"...
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - dgreensp 16y ago
    Apple's gcc is freely available and open source. If you have a specific reason for non-programmers to need a C compiler on their machine, you can even make an installer for it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- eliziario 16y ago
  Not every non-US developer have a credit card. Particularly if you are talking about young students. Windows SDK (That means: Compiler, Linker, Libs, Docs and Headers) is a free download from MSFT site. You only pay if you are a masochist and want to use Visual Studio.
- 16y ago
adsr 16y ago
It's a ridiculous argument, first of all that $5 would deter anyone, secondly the clang/llvm binaries are available freely, which is the default compiler in Xcode. http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8 http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8 GCC is freely available in source form.
- telemachos 16y ago
  > GCC is freely available in source form. But of course, source code is useless to you if your computer has no compiler. I was pretty sure that at least part of Holman's argument was that Apple could easily do all of us a favor and just ship with gcc pre-built. ("All of us" meaning the devs who do all this for a living as well as the casual coders who might want to install a Ruby library with C extensions.) How would that possibly hurt Apple?
  - adsr 16y ago
    Then compile it with llvm (if you absolutely must have GCC specifically), llvm is the new default compiler in Xcode. The link above has binaries both for clang and the GCC front end. Xcode 4 is still a pre-release, normally Xcode comes with the default OS X install disk. To make it available to non paying developers, it's been put on App store just one day ago. This is not a present problem, only a hypothetical future problem. That is another reason the argument is ridiculous. Apple do ship GCC pre-built, it's on the OS X install disk.
    - nupark 16y ago
      Then compile it with llvm (if you absolutely must have GCC specifically), llvm is the new default compiler in Xcode. The link above has binaries both for clang and the GCC front end. GCC is still the default compiler; Clang is still immature.
- zppx 16y ago
  Just a correction. As far as I observed in my coworker Macbook gcc still is the default compiler in Xcode 4. Just compiled some software with it today, and it pops a lot of gcc's in ps aux.
tylrdotorg 16y ago
If 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.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- psi 16y ago
  This doesn't actually seem to be the case. I just logged in to my (free) Apple Developer account and got the following message: -- You must be an iOS or Mac Developer Program member to download Xcode 4 or you can purchase Xcode 4 from the Mac App Store. -- According to http://developer.apple.com/programs/ http://developer.apple.com/programs/ both the iOS and Mac Developer programs are $99 per year.
- teilo 16y ago
  And you tried logging in with a free account and getting it? Didn't think so, because if you had, you would have kept quiet.
- inarru 16y ago
  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.
morroccomole 16y ago
I'll toot my own horn and say that I saw the writing on the wall 4 years ago and moved to Ubuntu. Best decision ever. I lack for nothing. Apple is the new Sony - no thanks.
jacknagel 16y ago
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.
MJR 16y ago
It’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.
- mnutt 16y ago
  No, he's arguing that asking somebody else to spend an hour of their time to install a gem is placing extra barriers to people experimenting with the software that came with their computer.
  - Terretta 16y ago
    Which is where he loses me. If that person wants to deal with gcc, they're not casual, and spending an hour grabbing latest libs and tools is how they roll, Xcode or no. Any time I'm on CPAN I end up updating 50 other things and 3 hours later wonder what I was looking for in the first place.
    - mnutt 16y ago
      I think the point might have been that there are some more casual uses (homebrew, rubygems, python eggs, etc) that aren't as hardcore as writing c but that have gcc as a dependency.
      - ahlatimer 16y ago
        Installing Xcode to get gcc was already a requirement before this. I really don't understand the argument. Funnily enough, I've never heard anyone mention it before this whole ruckus, even though installing Xcode was a requirement to get gcc in the past. No one has taken the time to build it themselves with the source that Apple gives out for free and host it for those that don't want to install Xcode.
geuis 16y ago
I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra space on their hdd. 2) It is absolutely not a burden to install the dev tools. There's absolutely no need to include gcc or the other dev tools by default. Non-developer folks almost never open the Terminal, much less compile their own software. 3) At most, I have to download the latest version of Xcode every 4-6 months. Yeah, she's a fat beast of a .dmg, but downloading and installing doesn't take up more than a few hours a year. Say that for Visual Studio or Eclipse which aren't as polished in some aspects, crash frequently, or run on platforms that crash frequently. (I'm not saying that VS or Eclipse share all 3 of those properties, and the crashing bit refers to Windows). 4) Its been demonstrated many times that Apple charges these $5 fees for previously free tools and applications because of SOX compliance laws. Apple has been providing their dev resources free for years. They are not hurting for cash and this isn't a money grab. They're at their all-time height of profitability, developer influence, and customer and market reach. Its rather obvious its about SOX.
- kstenerud 16y ago
  I don't understand. What does an accounting compliance law have to do with charging for previously free tools? And how were they able to release free tools in the years after 2002? What makes 2011 so special that they are compelled by law to start charging $5?
  - thought_alarm 16y ago
    OS X ships with XCode. Apple has never released a major XCode upgrade in-between OS releases until now.
    - statictype 16y ago
      What about iTunes? Why don't they have to charge for iTunes?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dasil003 16y ago
It's a legitimate point, but the linkbait title just irritates me. This is something that developers only have to deal with once every year or two. $5 is not a lot of money for a 4.5GB development package, regardless of whether you think it should be free. It certainly shouldn't be any kind of tipping point in platform choice for developers.
- bonch 16y ago
  > It certainly shouldn't be any kind of tipping point in platform choice for developers. It won't be. After the usual anti-Apple trolls have had their say, everyone will have forgotten about this phony "controversy" by next week.
  - flomo 16y ago
    I don't think so. The article makes a very valid point that people download XCode not because they care about Mac/iOS development, but only because Unix systems assume you have a compiler available as part of the software installation process. Folks like Ruby developers and MacPort users will not be happy to have to pay $5 to install something, when the equivalent Windows binaries are available for free. This is going to cause major disruption in how certain Mac software is distributed. The problem will not simply "go away" as trolls are distracted. Most likely Macs will move to a Macs move to a Windows-like model of binaries instead of build-scripts. However, someone could recreate the Mac toolchain and distribute it for free in an easy to install package. That's a lot of work to save someone $5 however, so there will be a lot of bitching-and-moaning in the short term.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
heyrhett 16y ago
Steve Jobs wants me to sign up for his service and give him $5 for the privilege of downloading 3.5G to get gcc on my computer now. Didn't we see this coming? http://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/10/oh-bitty-box-how-youre-grown/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/10/oh-bitty-box-how-youre-grown... "So rzr_grl had a zillion zillion files she wanted to download from a web site, using her OSX Mac. First she tries to use this program called Fetch, which is expirey nagware. (And it's just baffling to me that anyone would actually pay for software that does something as basic as "downloading files", but that's beside the point.) ... So I say, fuck this, I've heard rumors that these are real computers now, just use wget. So I download it, configure… oops, no C compiler. Presumably it was on some CD that she doesn't have here. So we go looking for an OSX binary of gcc. (Brief conversation on how it's possible for compilers to need compilers occurs.) Apparenty the only binaries are on Apple's site, and it takes forever to find it, because their site sucks. Also they make you register in order to download gcc. It's gcc! WTF! "
fierarul 16y ago
Wow, that's a long complaint-blog for $5! The cheapest new mac is $699 and the install DVD comes with XCode 3. Pretty sure new macs will come with XCode 4 preinstalled. I don't see how this is a problem. Even if you are building a Hackintosh, you're pirating OSX anyhow so pirating XCode too doesn't seem so far fetched. I have to use iPhoto'08 since that's what my Mac came with. But they just released iPhoto '11! Should I also write a long blog post complaining how Macs are not for normal people that take photos? XCode is just another app: it costs money to create and maintain and they charge for major revisions. Same as OSX, iLife apps, iWork, etc.
- zzzmarcus 16y ago
  OP isn't complaining about the price, or at least not principally. He's complaining about the 4gb download, the 15gb of HDD and the time of installing Xcode just to get gcc. The price is just another barrier to entry to add to the list before you're up and running.
  - fierarul 16y ago
    Well, technically this Xcode doesn't come just with gcc, it has the iOS SDK too. For example, on my machine I see this: du -h -d 1 /Developer/Platforms/ 10M /Developer/Platforms//MacOSX.platform 4.4G /Developer/Platforms//iPhoneOS.platform 4.2G /Developer/Platforms//iPhoneSimulator.platform 8.5G /Developer/Platforms/ Of the 10GB the /Developer folder takes, about 8GB are the iOS stuff. It seems normal they would bundle these since if you are downloading XCode, pretty sure you are doing Objective-C for iOS. 4GB is a big download and it does take space and it does take a while to install. But frankly, most people should be able to manage this quite nicely (and maybe even find a way to take back some of that space). If anything, the whole thing deserves a tweet not a huge blog post.
    - angrycoder 16y ago
      You are missing the point, the only way to get gcc on your mac is to install some version of Xcode.
Wientje 16y ago
I am not a GCC toolchain expert, but what is the trouble with someone hosting a GCC for OS X binary?
- dizm 16y ago
  Then they would have no one to blame their incompetence on, of course.
bcrescimanno 16y ago
Aside from all the other good points brought up here (the most notable being that this is the first time a major XCode upgrade has been available to non-registered developers between OS X releases), the most troubling thing about this submission is the inflammatory, link-baiting title. Honestly, the article itself doesn't even attempt to defend this ridiculous assertion. I'm all for stating your opinion, but can we keep the hyperbole to a minimum on HN please? There's a reason I stopped reading Digg...
nivertech 16y ago
Isn't gcc a GPL? How can Apple not distribute it?
- adsr 16y ago
  They do distribute it, it's on the OS X install disk.
- rayiner 16y ago
  First, Apple does make the GCC source available: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ Second, Apple doesn't ship GCC in the default install, why would they need to make it the source available?
  - DougBTX 16y ago
    Also, the download via http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-324/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-324/ includes a built version of gcc, i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1.
jorisw 16y ago
"its popularity grew from their recommendations". Really? You think developers drove Mac OS X popularity ? That's how Apple reaches consumers?
dedward 16y ago
Let's be honest - it feels like an insult. It's not an about face where they are charging something like $100 or more for their previously free development tools... which would anger people for different reasons, but make some sense. It's $5....... it's like saying, hey, after that super expensive $300 restaurant meal you just ate and paid for? We're tacking on an extra $2 if you want to leave the restaurant.... you can buy tickets over there. Apple better watch it, or they may lose some loyal customers....
- bonch 16y ago
  Give me a break! $5 for accounting legislation compliance is a personal insult to you? How is it at all comparable to selling tickets to leave a restaurant? You have to leave a restaurant. You're perfectly free to download the Xcode 3 developer tools, which are still available on the developer page. The melodrama from people criticizing this is embarrassing to read. People on Reddit were acting like it's some huge scandal.
bonch 16y ago
I didn't see anything in the article that supported the dramatic claim that OS X isn't for developers.
tomkarlo 16y ago
This whole Xcode/$5 topic (which seems to be getting unnatural air time on HN) reminds me of an old joke: A mom is at the beach with her child. Child gets swept away by a wave. She says "God, if you just bring him back, I'll [insert long set of promises]!!!" The next wave tosses the kid back on the shore, unharmed. She looks up and says "he had a hat!" How easy our lives have become that we can spend all this ink griping about $5, or a 15GB download that has to be done twice a year over our very fast broadband connections.
scott_s 16y ago
I'm not sure why having to separately install XCode to get gcc is a "blight." OSX is a consumer OS. If you are a developer, you're savvy enough to know that you stick in the OSX DVD after booting your Mac up for the first time and install developer tools. Then you never have to think about it again. Where's the blight?
dventimi 16y ago
I don't own or use a Mac anymore, but when I did in grad school a few years ago (using Tiger) I always got gcc binaries from here: http://hpc.sourceforge.net/ http://hpc.sourceforge.net/ I never installed XCode. I very very far from being an expert on this, so forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is there a reason these do not suffice?
fpgeek 16y ago
This reminds me of the controversy when Apple decided to stop developing (and pre-installing) Java. Strictly speaking, nothing any Java developer had been doing became impossible, but a lot of things became more inconvenient, more complicated and / or more frustrating. It felt like Apple didn't care and they thought (rightly or wrongly) Apple should. This Xcode 4 situation feels like the same thing. Maybe the status quo will return after Lion is released, maybe not. Right now, however, things are a bit more inconvenient / complicated / frustrating and it feels like Apple doesn't care all over again.
- yardie 16y ago
  What happened was that Oracle was to assume continued development of Java on OSX. What was reported was Apple was completely dropping it. In fact, I just received a notification that a new version was ready. And up to that point Apple was slowly killing Java development on the Mac. Updates were less frequent and ages behind other platforms. And you only had one choice to get the JDK, Apple. At least with Oracle, it's assumed, updates should be arriving regularly and in line with other platforms. Which is what Apple was saying all along when the controversy started.
sclarson 16y ago
You really shouldn't neglect to mention Mono among those developers. There are a lot of them of C#/Mono developers out there making applications for every platform that love using OS X and monodevelop.
stray 16y ago
C'mon it's five bucks. That's less than the cost of the average meal at a fast food restaurant - and Xcode only has to be bought once (and we don't have to buy it at all).
diamondhead 16y ago
I agree with the title, but am not interested at the OSX / XCode stuff because I'm a very happy, satisfied Linux & Lenovo user. My old company tried to force me to use a Macbook Pro, saying "developer community uses it", and I refused, saying "I give no piece of .... to a software with stupid and pretty looking icons, windows etc." because that stuff requires us to use mouse/touchpad stuff, which are useless, time wasting, uncomfortable and much less programmable, compared to a good keyboard ( good means not the ones apple produces ) As a coder, I want to be able to program my desktop to save time. There are many better ways to start a program clicking a pretty icon like a smiling cow, because we have a keyboard and also a program called dmenu -a real life saver-. Guys claiming that OSX provides a developer friendly desktop environment should give a try to an ideal linux desktop. I'm not talking about the crappy ones trying to compete against pixar, like gnome kde etc, I'm suggesting the tiling window managers such as xmonad, dwm, dmenu etc. Especially, I love dmenu. It makes possible to find a bookmark I saved to my delicious account, in just one second, pressing window+p buttons. This awesomeness counts for my browser history also. I type URLs calling dmenu that completes my input by searching my history, no need to open a browser window, no need to use a mouse or sth equivelent. Another awesomeness I love about Linux is the customizable browsers like UZBL, it's very easy to bind a key for a specific task. I'm saving 30-40 bookmarks each day, thanks to the B button. Only thing I need to do to save a bookmark to my delicious account is to press B button. Linux provides much more richer desktop environment with thousands of options, for the developers not fan of hipster UIs.
- matt2224 16y ago
  Well this is just trolling.
  - diamondhead 16y ago
    Guess it is, but as I pointed, there are companies forcing its folk to use OSX for development because it's popular around the developer community. I think OSX is a multimedia software with unix base.
- Terretta 16y ago
  Friend of mine who loves VIM recently switched from Ubuntu on PC clone to OS X on MacBook Pro. He doesn't use a mouse for anything, ever. Just because the icons are there doesn't mean you have to click them. Sounds like you just need someone to show you how Mac keyboard customisation works.
callumjones 16y ago
Let's no overreact until we either A) see Xcode 3 disappear B) no longer receive the OS X Dev Tools on the OS X install discs.
- callumjones 16y ago
  *not
teyc 16y ago
OS X won marketshare not because it won developers from Windows. Macs were already popular with web designers, but people who write the backends were programming against linux. By making Macs run on Unix, it initially took marketshare away from people who were installing Linux on commodity laptops.
futuremint 16y ago
Except that right now when someone wants to try your gem and doesn't have XCode installed... they can also still grab their install disc. Nothing precludes them from doing that instead of buying & downloading XCode 4. Also... chances are really good that if they're trying out your gem, they've tried out other gems. They've probably already had to install XCode at some point in the past. If they're a developer used to using OS X, they probably installed XCode out of habit as soon as they got their new Mac booted up. It is a little early to talk about the sky falling about this XCode thing until we see if a gcc toolchain is shipped as a free optional install on future hardware. The day a Mac isn't shipped with gcc somewhere in the box (DVD, memory stick, HDD, SSD) is the day you might have a point.
bgruber 16y ago
once upon a time, it was either really hard , really expensive, or both, to get your hands on a c compiler for whatever platform you were on. nowadays, thanks to rms and all of the folks who have worked on gcc over the years, the very idea of charging for a compiler seems crazy. now, gcc is dead easy to install on almost every platform, and we take its availability for granted. (as an aside, have you ever tried to download xcode for a version of osx which is not the current one? i have had to do this several times, and it is an absolute nightmare.) i see that clang has a license that would allow apple's version to have proprietary bits. do they? under what license does apple distribute their binary?
Groxx 16y ago
>Apple releases their gcc package, installs it in Lion by default, or otherwise makes it available. This would be excellent. The holy grail would be if Homebrew could use this and we could just run brew install gcc. It would be a huge, huge impact to our community. Or, you could JFGI[1]: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=apple+open+source http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=apple+open+sourc... Do people just not know about http://www.opensource.apple.com/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/ ? Apple's GCC source: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ go ahead, compile it. Add it to Brew. It's still under GPL. They even include instructions on how to compile it, flags, everything. There's a lot in those readmes / changelogs. It seems that every time someone laments that Apple is oh-so-closed and has-no-source and etc, they merely don't know about opensource.apple.com. I've seen "how could they not release it, it's GPL!" complaints all over the internet, and they sometimes go for months without someone doing a search anywhere for "apple open source". Or in this case, "apple gcc source", where the first link gives the location to download the source right in the very first sentence: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/gcc-4.0.1/gcc/Source-Code.html http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Develo... [1]: http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
- uxp 16y ago
  Assuming a just-bought vanilla Mac computer, how is someone supposed to install a tarball of GCC or LLVM/Clang sourcecode without a C compiler? Keep in mind that OS X does not come with "make", "ld", "as", "nasm", "yasm", "gcc", "g++", "cc", "c++", or any others I may have missed. I understand someone else could provide a pre-compiled package of GCC or Clang for the community, but that is not what the author is talking about in that point. He is specifically talking about end-users and developers of other languages besides C and Objective-C that may require installing packages that need to have native C extensions compiled. ruby-mysql comes to mind, as well as RVM, the Ruby Version Manager, becoming effectively useless without those Ruby developers being forced to buy Xcode, not for Xcode, but for GCC.
  - neild 16y ago
    Assuming a just-bought vanilla Mac computer, how is someone supposed to install a tarball of GCC or LLVM/Clang sourcecode without a C compiler? Take the developer DVD that came with your Mac, put it in the drive, and double-click the install icon?
bobwaycott 16y ago
To the crux of the article, from an experienced dynamic/static language developer on Mac, Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD: The OP argues OS X isn't for casual, inexperienced, and green developers who run across some random gem/pkg/app/lib/etc online they think is cool and want to play around with, but are inconvenienced and sidetracked by needing to install gcc or other non-included toolchain packages. I'd say by the time such a "casual user" hits this point, she begins crossing the line over casual & has sufficiently whet her appetite for more meaty endeavors. S/he might actually look at this "inconvenience" as fun, exciting, or something equally positive that increases his or her personal confidence upon completion (yes, even when it's just an installer on OS X). Now they have cool new tools available to them. They'd probably have an even greater boost in net positive feelings if Apple provided an Ubuntu-like console window during XCode installation that gave a nice terminal output of all the install's goings-on--s/he might feel a buildup of positive feelings for this systems-level, programmerish, "geeky" insider's view. I'm afraid the OP is guilty of looking at the casual new developer from the perspective of the rushed and impatient developer who, like myself, just wants shit to work and work now. When I pause for a moment to look at it from the not-so-casual-anymore user's perspective, however, I remember a good couple of years when I thought I was a badass cos I ran nothing but Gentoo Linux and chrooted, bootstrapped, and compiled every last package on my system from source for days. I'd watch compilations fill the screen and would have bet money I'd just grown an inch. I'd let that stick around a few weeks and then do it all over again for the excitement of it and to see if I could do it from memory. After a few tries, I actually could install Gentoo on a bare system without touching the manual, entirely from memory. This was almost 10 years ago, and I thought I was really something. But it was fun. There's a lot of excitement when one starts crossing the line from casual to more meatier development & systems use. I'm doubtful there's as many negative feelings experienced by the audience championed by the OP as he'd like us to believe. Especially on OS X.
mkramlich 16y ago
the title is demonstrably untrue
wpdev 16y ago
I've been using mac for over 6 years, but less and less often. Ubuntu is far more smoothy for developers, especially for backend developers.
cmsj 16y ago
Surely MacPorts or Ubuntu in a VM? Sorted! :)
chalst 16y ago
You can install a custom gcc, and then tune gcc_select and its configuration files to support it. It's been while since I've done this, but I did it when I was trying to use a version of gcc that was later than that supported by the most up-to-date Xcode available for OSX Tiger. Worked fine, and worked through Xcode.
harryklein 16y ago
Why not use XCode to compile GCC, Binutils and provide an installable GCC package to end users - apart from Fink and Macports?
harryklein 16y ago
and BTW, you get PHP on Windows from Microsoft through the Web Platform Installer
ochronus 16y ago
Well you can choose to install the console toolchain from the XCode dmg so you don't waste 15GB. Also what do you mean by "spend a decent amount of time installing xcode"? 5 minutes? 10? Whoa, not a big deal. Anyway I fully agree that apple should be very quick in releasing a free downloadable compiler toolchain and charge only for the IDE.
HomeSen 16y ago
Actually, you don't need to buy Xcode4 just to get gcc ;) Just have a look at the opensource page of apple: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/. You can get all the sources you need and thus could also create your own "brew package", or am I missing something here? Also you can still ask your users to find their OSX-DVDs and install (though an older version of) Xcode from there. If someone already mentioned the above, I apologize, but I'm too lazy to read 220+ comments :P
jameskatt 16y ago
This is an idiotic article. XCode is available for $4.99 on the Mac App Store (so you can get updates automatically) or for FREE if you care to download it and install it yourself. And it is INCLUDED FOR FREE on Mac OS X installation disks and EVERY Mac sold. DUH. Apple has made it INCREDIBLY EASY for Developers to create apps for OS X. All you have to do is witness the more than 442377 apps that have been approved for iOS (which has OS X as its base OS) and the thousands upon thousands of developers who have signed up for OS X. The Mac App Store makes it also incredibly easy to sell your apps to PAYING CUSTOMERS for OS X on Mac. Complaining about how much disk space XCode takes up is also a moot point given how cheap 2 GB hard drives are these days (e.g. $79 for a Hitachi 2 GB hard drive on Amazon). OS X IS FOR DEVELOPERS that actually want to ship and sell product. Period.
jameskatt 16y ago
This is an idiotic article. XCode is available for $4.99 on the Mac App Store (so you can get updates automatically) or for FREE if you care to download it and install it yourself. And it is INCLUDED FOR FREE on Mac OS X installation disks and EVERY Mac sold. DUH. Apple has made it INCREDIBLY EASY for Developers to create apps for OS X. All you have to do is witness the more than 442377 apps that have been approved for iOS (which has OS X as its base OS) and the thousands upon thousands of developers who have signed up for OS X. The Mac App Store makes it also incredibly easy to sell your apps to PAYING CUSTOMERS for OS X on Mac. Complaining about how much disk space XCode takes up is also a moot point given how cheap 2 GB hard drives are these days (e.g. $79 for a Hitachi 2 GB hard drive on Amazon). OS X IS FOR DEVELOPERS that actually want to ship and sell product. Period.
yMcDonald 16y ago
Eclipse. That's enough to turn any iMac (well, any computers) into a programmer's powerhouse. Last year, I led a small team of 3 devs to build a homebrew app for the NDS portable game console. We all used different OSes/IDE for development out of necessity (WinXp, Linux/Eclipse, MacOS X/xCode). Although I had no problem installing arm-gcc on the Mac and configure xCode to use the NDS-specific toolchain, I still prefer Eclipse. Maybe xCode 4 will change that perception... Looking forward to give it a spin... Yves McDonald
AppleDev 16y ago
I think Zack goes to great length to spread FUD by leaving out facts. First of all, you can join the iPhone developers program "FOR FREE" and download the Xcode tools for free (you just can't release iPhone apps on the app store with the free membership). And yes, a 4.5 GB download is quite large to be sure. However, as the previous poster points out, it's a few hours a year at most. Even if you download all the beta releases too. A large majority of mac users have a cable internet connections making it a non-issue. Really a small price to pay (download size) given the quality of the tool set Apple provides. And Price, have you checked the PRICE and download sizes of Microsoft's Visual Studio and SQL Server lately? And your argument about all this work to use one of your gems is ridiculous. Anyone who does rails or ruby development and Uses a mac for development already has the proper tools installed. and by the content of your article, knows substantially more than you about developing on OS X. Finally, Buying a new Mac gives you the latest tool set on DVD. I really think this post made for 1 or all of the following reasons. Some people just hate Apple because they have managed to succeed during the worst economic downfall since the depression. Not only succeed, but thrive despite the higher price of their Superior quality products and Software. The same way some hate Microsoft just because they are Microsoft. No rational, logical, or even factual reasons given, just Apple/Microsoft Bashing. More a demonstration of these peoples IQ than anything else. Bashing Apple is currently in Vogue. Those posters with a lack of knowledge, but trying build a following are jumping on the bash Apple train trying to establish credibility. Judging by Zack's article, you've achieved the opposite. You have demonstrated your LACK of ability and knowledge.
MatthewPhillips 16y ago
I can't stand developing on a Mac. 1) Linux has better language/tool support. 2) Windows has (much) better dual-screen support.

187 points by holman 16y ago

The 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 Ubuntu, but it's still something you have to explicitly install. 3. If I wasn't a dev, I'd be pissed to find some compiler toolchain IDE gongshow eating up 5-15GB of my disk space, so not having it by default is probably a good thing. Most people aren't devs. I paid the $5, but I'd still like to see just the toolchain available as a free download, though I still don't think it would be a good thing to have it installed by default.

petercooper 16y ago
If I wasn't a dev, I'd be pissed to find out some compiler toolchain IDE gongshow eating up 5-15GB of my disk space Yeah, but the essentials that most command line builds require wouldn't even take up 10% of that. Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need.
- darkhelmetlive 16y ago
  No doubt, hence why just the toolchain would be awesome. I don't even use Xcode.
- eddieplan9 16y ago
  Your house is not for developers! It did not come with a free computer when you bought it! Even though a computer would only cost as little as 0.2% of the cost of the house, and the previous owner already wasted tons of money on the useless peach trees in the yard.
  - mitko 16y ago
    hm, how come gcc comes for free on lunux, and install is as easy as: >> sudo apt-get install gcc
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      You try that command in a base Arch install and get back to me. You're basically blaming Apple for not having a package manager, even though that's clearly the responsibility of the community.
- suchire 16y ago
  Actually I think Snow Leopard stripped out a lot of those extra gigabytes; only a few printers have drivers out of the box now.
- guptaneil 16y ago
  Sure, but if you are a dev, installing the necessary tools is a pretty easy and painless thing to do. If you aren't a dev (like most people), why have it installed at all? Since Snow Leopard, printer drivers are no longer included with the OS either. Instead, they are downloaded through Software Update as soon as you plug a printer in. Having said that, the fact that Xcode is listed on the Mac App Store instead of just in the developer portal, I suspect that Apple will bundle Xcode 4 with Lion to try to encourage more app development.
- bonch 16y ago
  > Apple already wastes gigabytes on printer drivers and extra languages you don't need. No, they didn't. For example, Snow Leopard downloads printer drivers from Apple as you need them.
  - zppx 16y ago
    Extra languages are still there though. But I think this is good, mom uses her Mac Mini in Hebrew, my account uses English, dad uses our native Portuguese (I live in Brazil).
    - ahlatimer 16y ago
      You likely don't need printer drivers or a developer tool chain to get your computer set up enough to connect it to WiFi or ethernet. You probably do need different languages if the one the computer defaults to is not one with which you are familiar.
holman 16y ago
I'm so down with an apt-get (or in this case, brew install) for build tools. That's really what I'm getting at. It'd be great if it were installed by default, but if it were just accessibile by any means it'd be a massive step up. Most people don't need all of Xcode.
- darkhelmetlive 16y ago
  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.
  - jsolson 16y ago
    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 still need Homebrew, but that plus a toolchain is a much smaller burden.
    - JonnieCache 16y ago
      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.
- jaybuff 16y ago
  If there was a package manager for os x that shipped binaries we wouldn't be in this predicament either. brew building from source is just as much to blame as os x not shipping gcc with default install.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
there 16y ago
The gcc version is, for all intensive purposes, identical. "for all intents and purposes"
- sabat 16y ago
  Also heard in the corporate world: "The ownness (sic) is on you" (onus).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

wmoxam 16y ago

Argument 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.

holman 16y ago
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.
- tvon 16y ago
  It doesn't involve credit cards as xcode 3 is still freely available. If Apple does not include the developer tools on the Lion DVD, and if they remove all free versions of xcode for download, then I don't doubt someone will package up the "build essentials" for OSX and make them available. To date there has been no reason to do this, but if there is a reason, there is nothing preventing it that I am aware of. edit: though I agree a smaller "build essentials" tool chain would be nice, but that was the case before you had to pay for xcode and nobody has bothered to create one. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be possible, only that it's probably not worth the hassle of setting it up and maintaining it (though Apple doing it would be excellent).
  - holman 16y ago
    Xcode 3 doesn't solve the issue of it being a real pain in the butt to install. gcc by itself is much, much smaller and much less of an issue for a casual user to install.
    - dunham 16y ago
      Isn't it on the DVD that came with the computer? Double-click to install..
    - 16y ago

upinsmoke 16y ago

gcc version is the same as Xcode 3. Xcode 3 is free at developer.apple.com

joeld42 16y ago

I don't understand? Can't you release the ruby gems or whatever it is as binaries? You only need to spend the $5 if you want to change something, right?

jarin 16y ago
Gems that use C extensions generally build them using native libraries.
- sid0 16y ago
  That sounds fixable.
  - teilo 16y ago
    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.
    - sid0 16y ago
      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.
      - teilo 16y ago
        Almost every open source library on my Mac is compiled from source. Name your system: homebrew, ports, fink, they have all switch to compiling from source. Every scripting extension repository I know assumes you have a compiler to compile native libraries for extensions. And this has been true for "a long while". The change you are proposing is not trivial, and it has far-reaching implications. It is a step backwards, and one that every developer should oppose.
16y ago

cschep 16y ago

If Xcode 4 is on the Lion disc, I think we're all going to be juuust fine. If it's not, I agree. Fuck. Until then, we don't know!

aeontech 16y ago

What a lot of people seem to miss is that Xcode 4 is still a free download on http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ for members of the developer program (which is a free membership).

wriq 16y ago
Free ADC members still have to go through App Store and pay the $4.99.
darkhelmetlive 16y ago
Xcode 3 is free, but not 4. Either the developer program, or $5 on the app store.
teilo 16y ago
No, this is wrong. A developer login is free. The developer program costs $99 a year. You cannot get XCode for free unless you have ponied up your $99.
- aeontech 16y ago
  I stand corrected.
inarru 16y ago
"for members of the developer program (which is a free membership)." no, it's only free for members of the paid developer program. free members who try and download it are given a link to the appstore or an option to purchase the yearly membership.

rsefer 16y ago

I think the $5.00 is to deter the average user from seeing a free App made by Apple and downloading it, eating up significant bandwidth

pohl 16y ago
...and then calling the support lines asking "why is my disk full?"
k33l0r 16y ago
Then why not offer the download for free on developer.apple.com and charge the 5 dollars for the convenience of using the Mac App Store?

benatkin 16y ago

For many types of development, there's this: http://vagrantup.com/ http://vagrantup.com/ It makes VMs free and easier. It uses VirtualBox, an open source VM environment.

technomancy 16y ago
This. We've got a mixed team of Ubuntu/Macosecks people, and _nobody_ does actual development work on OS X any more. It's a lot more convenient if your development environment matches your deployment environment. Working otherwise is swimming upstream.
- nupark 16y ago
  Requiring an exact match between deployment and development is swimming upstream, as you'll quickly introduce unintentional dependencies on specific facets of your host OS. Plus, having to use VMs for development is even worse, why slow yourself down with non-native tooling?
  - benatkin 16y ago
    The way you phrase this makes it a pain to debate, to I'll try saying it a different way first. You give two reasons for not developing inside VMs: * It forces you to deal with different configurations, which results in being able to move between systems more easily. * It's slow. The problem with your argument about dependencies is it invites distraction. The cross-environment difficulties don't happen when you control; they happen on their own schedule. The proper way to make sure things are portable is to have a process for it. As for the performance thing, that may or may not be an issue. It's not wise to just assume it's going to be an issue. Usually a VM is fast enough for development.

terhechte 16y ago

Isn't the llvm toolchain a free download, and doesn't it offer a gcc front end?

ironchef 16y ago

I don't get it. What's wrong with "sudo port install gcc46 ruby19 ruby186"?

k33l0r 16y ago
Because requiring yet another third party tool is just an extra barrier. And not everyone uses MacPorts anyway, personally I don't want to see MacPorts anywhere near my computer...
- jcapote 16y ago
  Not to mention you need GCC to build GCC
  - pohl 16y ago
    Well,you would need some C compiler. You could build FCC with clang.
kluikens 16y ago
Assuming no other available build toolchain (e.g. Xcode 3), you won't have macports installed. How will you compile gcc, ruby if you don't already have a compiler?
- tvon 16y ago
  Well, I'm pretty sure gcc can bootstrap and self-compile, but I don't know if macports is setup for that. edit: apparently it's not self-compiling, at least not in the way I was thinking.
  - fpgeek 16y ago
    Even gcc is not that metacircular. There needs to be some compiler at the bottom of the bootstrapping.
  - scott_s 16y ago

s3graham 16y ago

> You still won’t see PHP installed on Windows any time soon. Not preinstalled because that would be undesirable, but http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx makes it pretty painless to install PHP and a whole whack of that style of crap. Is there a real problem here? It seems like any compiler would do for the problems you're talking about. Yes, someone needs to package it, but I don't see that it really must be Apple.

thought_alarm 16y ago

In the past these kinds of midstream Xcode upgrades were only available to registered developers. So other developers should be grateful that this upgrade is available at all this time. And if 5 bucks is too much for you then I guess you'll just have to continue to use Xcode 3 and wait for Lion.

sabat 16y ago

Compared 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.

holman 16y ago
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.
- redacted 16y ago
  It's the casual users that want to use ImageMagick in their PHP site?! No offence intended, but I think we have different definitions of "casual user"...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dgreensp 16y ago
  Apple's gcc is freely available and open source. If you have a specific reason for non-programmers to need a C compiler on their machine, you can even make an installer for it.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
eliziario 16y ago
Not every non-US developer have a credit card. Particularly if you are talking about young students. Windows SDK (That means: Compiler, Linker, Libs, Docs and Headers) is a free download from MSFT site. You only pay if you are a masochist and want to use Visual Studio.
16y ago

adsr 16y ago

It's a ridiculous argument, first of all that $5 would deter anyone, secondly the clang/llvm binaries are available freely, which is the default compiler in Xcode. http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8 http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8 GCC is freely available in source form.

telemachos 16y ago
> GCC is freely available in source form. But of course, source code is useless to you if your computer has no compiler. I was pretty sure that at least part of Holman's argument was that Apple could easily do all of us a favor and just ship with gcc pre-built. ("All of us" meaning the devs who do all this for a living as well as the casual coders who might want to install a Ruby library with C extensions.) How would that possibly hurt Apple?
- adsr 16y ago
  Then compile it with llvm (if you absolutely must have GCC specifically), llvm is the new default compiler in Xcode. The link above has binaries both for clang and the GCC front end. Xcode 4 is still a pre-release, normally Xcode comes with the default OS X install disk. To make it available to non paying developers, it's been put on App store just one day ago. This is not a present problem, only a hypothetical future problem. That is another reason the argument is ridiculous. Apple do ship GCC pre-built, it's on the OS X install disk.
  - nupark 16y ago
    Then compile it with llvm (if you absolutely must have GCC specifically), llvm is the new default compiler in Xcode. The link above has binaries both for clang and the GCC front end. GCC is still the default compiler; Clang is still immature.
zppx 16y ago
Just a correction. As far as I observed in my coworker Macbook gcc still is the default compiler in Xcode 4. Just compiled some software with it today, and it pops a lot of gcc's in ps aux.

tylrdotorg 16y ago

If 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.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
psi 16y ago
This doesn't actually seem to be the case. I just logged in to my (free) Apple Developer account and got the following message: -- You must be an iOS or Mac Developer Program member to download Xcode 4 or you can purchase Xcode 4 from the Mac App Store. -- According to http://developer.apple.com/programs/ http://developer.apple.com/programs/ both the iOS and Mac Developer programs are $99 per year.
teilo 16y ago
And you tried logging in with a free account and getting it? Didn't think so, because if you had, you would have kept quiet.
inarru 16y ago
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.

morroccomole 16y ago

I'll toot my own horn and say that I saw the writing on the wall 4 years ago and moved to Ubuntu. Best decision ever. I lack for nothing. Apple is the new Sony - no thanks.

jacknagel 16y ago

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.

MJR 16y ago

It’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.

mnutt 16y ago
No, he's arguing that asking somebody else to spend an hour of their time to install a gem is placing extra barriers to people experimenting with the software that came with their computer.
- Terretta 16y ago
  Which is where he loses me. If that person wants to deal with gcc, they're not casual, and spending an hour grabbing latest libs and tools is how they roll, Xcode or no. Any time I'm on CPAN I end up updating 50 other things and 3 hours later wonder what I was looking for in the first place.
  - mnutt 16y ago
    I think the point might have been that there are some more casual uses (homebrew, rubygems, python eggs, etc) that aren't as hardcore as writing c but that have gcc as a dependency.
    - ahlatimer 16y ago
      Installing Xcode to get gcc was already a requirement before this. I really don't understand the argument. Funnily enough, I've never heard anyone mention it before this whole ruckus, even though installing Xcode was a requirement to get gcc in the past. No one has taken the time to build it themselves with the source that Apple gives out for free and host it for those that don't want to install Xcode.

geuis 16y ago

I disagree with all of the OP's points, except for one. Yes, Macs are incredibly popular with developers. 1) The reason I have always liked Macs since I was a kid is they basically come with what they need, and its easy to install extra stuff if you need it. Just because many developers like Macs doesn't mean that most Mac owners are developers. Most are just normal people who would wonder what is eating up extra space on their hdd. 2) It is absolutely not a burden to install the dev tools. There's absolutely no need to include gcc or the other dev tools by default. Non-developer folks almost never open the Terminal, much less compile their own software. 3) At most, I have to download the latest version of Xcode every 4-6 months. Yeah, she's a fat beast of a .dmg, but downloading and installing doesn't take up more than a few hours a year. Say that for Visual Studio or Eclipse which aren't as polished in some aspects, crash frequently, or run on platforms that crash frequently. (I'm not saying that VS or Eclipse share all 3 of those properties, and the crashing bit refers to Windows). 4) Its been demonstrated many times that Apple charges these $5 fees for previously free tools and applications because of SOX compliance laws. Apple has been providing their dev resources free for years. They are not hurting for cash and this isn't a money grab. They're at their all-time height of profitability, developer influence, and customer and market reach. Its rather obvious its about SOX.

kstenerud 16y ago
I don't understand. What does an accounting compliance law have to do with charging for previously free tools? And how were they able to release free tools in the years after 2002? What makes 2011 so special that they are compelled by law to start charging $5?
- thought_alarm 16y ago
  OS X ships with XCode. Apple has never released a major XCode upgrade in-between OS releases until now.
  - statictype 16y ago
    What about iTunes? Why don't they have to charge for iTunes?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dasil003 16y ago

It's a legitimate point, but the linkbait title just irritates me. This is something that developers only have to deal with once every year or two. $5 is not a lot of money for a 4.5GB development package, regardless of whether you think it should be free. It certainly shouldn't be any kind of tipping point in platform choice for developers.

bonch 16y ago
> It certainly shouldn't be any kind of tipping point in platform choice for developers. It won't be. After the usual anti-Apple trolls have had their say, everyone will have forgotten about this phony "controversy" by next week.
- flomo 16y ago
  I don't think so. The article makes a very valid point that people download XCode not because they care about Mac/iOS development, but only because Unix systems assume you have a compiler available as part of the software installation process. Folks like Ruby developers and MacPort users will not be happy to have to pay $5 to install something, when the equivalent Windows binaries are available for free. This is going to cause major disruption in how certain Mac software is distributed. The problem will not simply "go away" as trolls are distracted. Most likely Macs will move to a Macs move to a Windows-like model of binaries instead of build-scripts. However, someone could recreate the Mac toolchain and distribute it for free in an easy to install package. That's a lot of work to save someone $5 however, so there will be a lot of bitching-and-moaning in the short term.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

heyrhett 16y ago

Steve Jobs wants me to sign up for his service and give him $5 for the privilege of downloading 3.5G to get gcc on my computer now. Didn't we see this coming? http://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/10/oh-bitty-box-how-youre-grown/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2002/10/oh-bitty-box-how-youre-grown... "So rzr_grl had a zillion zillion files she wanted to download from a web site, using her OSX Mac. First she tries to use this program called Fetch, which is expirey nagware. (And it's just baffling to me that anyone would actually pay for software that does something as basic as "downloading files", but that's beside the point.) ... So I say, fuck this, I've heard rumors that these are real computers now, just use wget. So I download it, configure… oops, no C compiler. Presumably it was on some CD that she doesn't have here. So we go looking for an OSX binary of gcc. (Brief conversation on how it's possible for compilers to need compilers occurs.) Apparenty the only binaries are on Apple's site, and it takes forever to find it, because their site sucks. Also they make you register in order to download gcc. It's gcc! WTF! "

fierarul 16y ago

Wow, that's a long complaint-blog for $5! The cheapest new mac is $699 and the install DVD comes with XCode 3. Pretty sure new macs will come with XCode 4 preinstalled. I don't see how this is a problem. Even if you are building a Hackintosh, you're pirating OSX anyhow so pirating XCode too doesn't seem so far fetched. I have to use iPhoto'08 since that's what my Mac came with. But they just released iPhoto '11! Should I also write a long blog post complaining how Macs are not for normal people that take photos? XCode is just another app: it costs money to create and maintain and they charge for major revisions. Same as OSX, iLife apps, iWork, etc.

zzzmarcus 16y ago
OP isn't complaining about the price, or at least not principally. He's complaining about the 4gb download, the 15gb of HDD and the time of installing Xcode just to get gcc. The price is just another barrier to entry to add to the list before you're up and running.
- fierarul 16y ago
  Well, technically this Xcode doesn't come just with gcc, it has the iOS SDK too. For example, on my machine I see this: du -h -d 1 /Developer/Platforms/ 10M /Developer/Platforms//MacOSX.platform 4.4G /Developer/Platforms//iPhoneOS.platform 4.2G /Developer/Platforms//iPhoneSimulator.platform 8.5G /Developer/Platforms/ Of the 10GB the /Developer folder takes, about 8GB are the iOS stuff. It seems normal they would bundle these since if you are downloading XCode, pretty sure you are doing Objective-C for iOS. 4GB is a big download and it does take space and it does take a while to install. But frankly, most people should be able to manage this quite nicely (and maybe even find a way to take back some of that space). If anything, the whole thing deserves a tweet not a huge blog post.
  - angrycoder 16y ago
    You are missing the point, the only way to get gcc on your mac is to install some version of Xcode.

Wientje 16y ago

I am not a GCC toolchain expert, but what is the trouble with someone hosting a GCC for OS X binary?

dizm 16y ago
Then they would have no one to blame their incompetence on, of course.

bcrescimanno 16y ago

Aside from all the other good points brought up here (the most notable being that this is the first time a major XCode upgrade has been available to non-registered developers between OS X releases), the most troubling thing about this submission is the inflammatory, link-baiting title. Honestly, the article itself doesn't even attempt to defend this ridiculous assertion. I'm all for stating your opinion, but can we keep the hyperbole to a minimum on HN please? There's a reason I stopped reading Digg...

nivertech 16y ago

Isn't gcc a GPL? How can Apple not distribute it?

adsr 16y ago
They do distribute it, it's on the OS X install disk.
rayiner 16y ago
First, Apple does make the GCC source available: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ Second, Apple doesn't ship GCC in the default install, why would they need to make it the source available?
- DougBTX 16y ago
  Also, the download via http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-324/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/developer-tools-324/ includes a built version of gcc, i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1.

jorisw 16y ago

"its popularity grew from their recommendations". Really? You think developers drove Mac OS X popularity ? That's how Apple reaches consumers?

dedward 16y ago

Let's be honest - it feels like an insult. It's not an about face where they are charging something like $100 or more for their previously free development tools... which would anger people for different reasons, but make some sense. It's $5....... it's like saying, hey, after that super expensive $300 restaurant meal you just ate and paid for? We're tacking on an extra $2 if you want to leave the restaurant.... you can buy tickets over there. Apple better watch it, or they may lose some loyal customers....

bonch 16y ago
Give me a break! $5 for accounting legislation compliance is a personal insult to you? How is it at all comparable to selling tickets to leave a restaurant? You have to leave a restaurant. You're perfectly free to download the Xcode 3 developer tools, which are still available on the developer page. The melodrama from people criticizing this is embarrassing to read. People on Reddit were acting like it's some huge scandal.

bonch 16y ago

I didn't see anything in the article that supported the dramatic claim that OS X isn't for developers.

tomkarlo 16y ago

This whole Xcode/$5 topic (which seems to be getting unnatural air time on HN) reminds me of an old joke: A mom is at the beach with her child. Child gets swept away by a wave. She says "God, if you just bring him back, I'll [insert long set of promises]!!!" The next wave tosses the kid back on the shore, unharmed. She looks up and says "he had a hat!" How easy our lives have become that we can spend all this ink griping about $5, or a 15GB download that has to be done twice a year over our very fast broadband connections.

scott_s 16y ago

I'm not sure why having to separately install XCode to get gcc is a "blight." OSX is a consumer OS. If you are a developer, you're savvy enough to know that you stick in the OSX DVD after booting your Mac up for the first time and install developer tools. Then you never have to think about it again. Where's the blight?

dventimi 16y ago

I don't own or use a Mac anymore, but when I did in grad school a few years ago (using Tiger) I always got gcc binaries from here: http://hpc.sourceforge.net/ http://hpc.sourceforge.net/ I never installed XCode. I very very far from being an expert on this, so forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is there a reason these do not suffice?

fpgeek 16y ago

This reminds me of the controversy when Apple decided to stop developing (and pre-installing) Java. Strictly speaking, nothing any Java developer had been doing became impossible, but a lot of things became more inconvenient, more complicated and / or more frustrating. It felt like Apple didn't care and they thought (rightly or wrongly) Apple should. This Xcode 4 situation feels like the same thing. Maybe the status quo will return after Lion is released, maybe not. Right now, however, things are a bit more inconvenient / complicated / frustrating and it feels like Apple doesn't care all over again.

yardie 16y ago
What happened was that Oracle was to assume continued development of Java on OSX. What was reported was Apple was completely dropping it. In fact, I just received a notification that a new version was ready. And up to that point Apple was slowly killing Java development on the Mac. Updates were less frequent and ages behind other platforms. And you only had one choice to get the JDK, Apple. At least with Oracle, it's assumed, updates should be arriving regularly and in line with other platforms. Which is what Apple was saying all along when the controversy started.

sclarson 16y ago

You really shouldn't neglect to mention Mono among those developers. There are a lot of them of C#/Mono developers out there making applications for every platform that love using OS X and monodevelop.

stray 16y ago

C'mon it's five bucks. That's less than the cost of the average meal at a fast food restaurant - and Xcode only has to be bought once (and we don't have to buy it at all).

diamondhead 16y ago

I agree with the title, but am not interested at the OSX / XCode stuff because I'm a very happy, satisfied Linux & Lenovo user. My old company tried to force me to use a Macbook Pro, saying "developer community uses it", and I refused, saying "I give no piece of .... to a software with stupid and pretty looking icons, windows etc." because that stuff requires us to use mouse/touchpad stuff, which are useless, time wasting, uncomfortable and much less programmable, compared to a good keyboard ( good means not the ones apple produces ) As a coder, I want to be able to program my desktop to save time. There are many better ways to start a program clicking a pretty icon like a smiling cow, because we have a keyboard and also a program called dmenu -a real life saver-. Guys claiming that OSX provides a developer friendly desktop environment should give a try to an ideal linux desktop. I'm not talking about the crappy ones trying to compete against pixar, like gnome kde etc, I'm suggesting the tiling window managers such as xmonad, dwm, dmenu etc. Especially, I love dmenu. It makes possible to find a bookmark I saved to my delicious account, in just one second, pressing window+p buttons. This awesomeness counts for my browser history also. I type URLs calling dmenu that completes my input by searching my history, no need to open a browser window, no need to use a mouse or sth equivelent. Another awesomeness I love about Linux is the customizable browsers like UZBL, it's very easy to bind a key for a specific task. I'm saving 30-40 bookmarks each day, thanks to the B button. Only thing I need to do to save a bookmark to my delicious account is to press B button. Linux provides much more richer desktop environment with thousands of options, for the developers not fan of hipster UIs.

matt2224 16y ago
Well this is just trolling.
- diamondhead 16y ago
  Guess it is, but as I pointed, there are companies forcing its folk to use OSX for development because it's popular around the developer community. I think OSX is a multimedia software with unix base.
Terretta 16y ago
Friend of mine who loves VIM recently switched from Ubuntu on PC clone to OS X on MacBook Pro. He doesn't use a mouse for anything, ever. Just because the icons are there doesn't mean you have to click them. Sounds like you just need someone to show you how Mac keyboard customisation works.

callumjones 16y ago

Let's no overreact until we either A) see Xcode 3 disappear B) no longer receive the OS X Dev Tools on the OS X install discs.

callumjones 16y ago
*not

teyc 16y ago

OS X won marketshare not because it won developers from Windows. Macs were already popular with web designers, but people who write the backends were programming against linux. By making Macs run on Unix, it initially took marketshare away from people who were installing Linux on commodity laptops.

futuremint 16y ago

Except that right now when someone wants to try your gem and doesn't have XCode installed... they can also still grab their install disc. Nothing precludes them from doing that instead of buying & downloading XCode 4. Also... chances are really good that if they're trying out your gem, they've tried out other gems. They've probably already had to install XCode at some point in the past. If they're a developer used to using OS X, they probably installed XCode out of habit as soon as they got their new Mac booted up. It is a little early to talk about the sky falling about this XCode thing until we see if a gcc toolchain is shipped as a free optional install on future hardware. The day a Mac isn't shipped with gcc somewhere in the box (DVD, memory stick, HDD, SSD) is the day you might have a point.

bgruber 16y ago

once upon a time, it was either really hard , really expensive, or both, to get your hands on a c compiler for whatever platform you were on. nowadays, thanks to rms and all of the folks who have worked on gcc over the years, the very idea of charging for a compiler seems crazy. now, gcc is dead easy to install on almost every platform, and we take its availability for granted. (as an aside, have you ever tried to download xcode for a version of osx which is not the current one? i have had to do this several times, and it is an absolute nightmare.) i see that clang has a license that would allow apple's version to have proprietary bits. do they? under what license does apple distribute their binary?

Groxx 16y ago

>Apple releases their gcc package, installs it in Lion by default, or otherwise makes it available. This would be excellent. The holy grail would be if Homebrew could use this and we could just run brew install gcc. It would be a huge, huge impact to our community. Or, you could JFGI[1]: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=apple+open+source http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=apple+open+sourc... Do people just not know about http://www.opensource.apple.com/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/ ? Apple's GCC source: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5646/ go ahead, compile it. Add it to Brew. It's still under GPL. They even include instructions on how to compile it, flags, everything. There's a lot in those readmes / changelogs. It seems that every time someone laments that Apple is oh-so-closed and has-no-source and etc, they merely don't know about opensource.apple.com. I've seen "how could they not release it, it's GPL!" complaints all over the internet, and they sometimes go for months without someone doing a search anywhere for "apple open source". Or in this case, "apple gcc source", where the first link gives the location to download the source right in the very first sentence: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/gcc-4.0.1/gcc/Source-Code.html http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Develo... [1]: http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/

uxp 16y ago
Assuming a just-bought vanilla Mac computer, how is someone supposed to install a tarball of GCC or LLVM/Clang sourcecode without a C compiler? Keep in mind that OS X does not come with "make", "ld", "as", "nasm", "yasm", "gcc", "g++", "cc", "c++", or any others I may have missed. I understand someone else could provide a pre-compiled package of GCC or Clang for the community, but that is not what the author is talking about in that point. He is specifically talking about end-users and developers of other languages besides C and Objective-C that may require installing packages that need to have native C extensions compiled. ruby-mysql comes to mind, as well as RVM, the Ruby Version Manager, becoming effectively useless without those Ruby developers being forced to buy Xcode, not for Xcode, but for GCC.
- neild 16y ago
  Assuming a just-bought vanilla Mac computer, how is someone supposed to install a tarball of GCC or LLVM/Clang sourcecode without a C compiler? Take the developer DVD that came with your Mac, put it in the drive, and double-click the install icon?

bobwaycott 16y ago

To the crux of the article, from an experienced dynamic/static language developer on Mac, Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD: The OP argues OS X isn't for casual, inexperienced, and green developers who run across some random gem/pkg/app/lib/etc online they think is cool and want to play around with, but are inconvenienced and sidetracked by needing to install gcc or other non-included toolchain packages. I'd say by the time such a "casual user" hits this point, she begins crossing the line over casual & has sufficiently whet her appetite for more meaty endeavors. S/he might actually look at this "inconvenience" as fun, exciting, or something equally positive that increases his or her personal confidence upon completion (yes, even when it's just an installer on OS X). Now they have cool new tools available to them. They'd probably have an even greater boost in net positive feelings if Apple provided an Ubuntu-like console window during XCode installation that gave a nice terminal output of all the install's goings-on--s/he might feel a buildup of positive feelings for this systems-level, programmerish, "geeky" insider's view. I'm afraid the OP is guilty of looking at the casual new developer from the perspective of the rushed and impatient developer who, like myself, just wants shit to work and work now. When I pause for a moment to look at it from the not-so-casual-anymore user's perspective, however, I remember a good couple of years when I thought I was a badass cos I ran nothing but Gentoo Linux and chrooted, bootstrapped, and compiled every last package on my system from source for days. I'd watch compilations fill the screen and would have bet money I'd just grown an inch. I'd let that stick around a few weeks and then do it all over again for the excitement of it and to see if I could do it from memory. After a few tries, I actually could install Gentoo on a bare system without touching the manual, entirely from memory. This was almost 10 years ago, and I thought I was really something. But it was fun. There's a lot of excitement when one starts crossing the line from casual to more meatier development & systems use. I'm doubtful there's as many negative feelings experienced by the audience championed by the OP as he'd like us to believe. Especially on OS X.

mkramlich 16y ago

the title is demonstrably untrue

wpdev 16y ago

I've been using mac for over 6 years, but less and less often. Ubuntu is far more smoothy for developers, especially for backend developers.

cmsj 16y ago

Surely MacPorts or Ubuntu in a VM? Sorted! :)

chalst 16y ago

You can install a custom gcc, and then tune gcc_select and its configuration files to support it. It's been while since I've done this, but I did it when I was trying to use a version of gcc that was later than that supported by the most up-to-date Xcode available for OSX Tiger. Worked fine, and worked through Xcode.

harryklein 16y ago

Why not use XCode to compile GCC, Binutils and provide an installable GCC package to end users - apart from Fink and Macports?

harryklein 16y ago

and BTW, you get PHP on Windows from Microsoft through the Web Platform Installer

ochronus 16y ago

Well you can choose to install the console toolchain from the XCode dmg so you don't waste 15GB. Also what do you mean by "spend a decent amount of time installing xcode"? 5 minutes? 10? Whoa, not a big deal. Anyway I fully agree that apple should be very quick in releasing a free downloadable compiler toolchain and charge only for the IDE.

HomeSen 16y ago

Actually, you don't need to buy Xcode4 just to get gcc ;) Just have a look at the opensource page of apple: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/. You can get all the sources you need and thus could also create your own "brew package", or am I missing something here? Also you can still ask your users to find their OSX-DVDs and install (though an older version of) Xcode from there. If someone already mentioned the above, I apologize, but I'm too lazy to read 220+ comments :P

jameskatt 16y ago

This is an idiotic article. XCode is available for $4.99 on the Mac App Store (so you can get updates automatically) or for FREE if you care to download it and install it yourself. And it is INCLUDED FOR FREE on Mac OS X installation disks and EVERY Mac sold. DUH. Apple has made it INCREDIBLY EASY for Developers to create apps for OS X. All you have to do is witness the more than 442377 apps that have been approved for iOS (which has OS X as its base OS) and the thousands upon thousands of developers who have signed up for OS X. The Mac App Store makes it also incredibly easy to sell your apps to PAYING CUSTOMERS for OS X on Mac. Complaining about how much disk space XCode takes up is also a moot point given how cheap 2 GB hard drives are these days (e.g. $79 for a Hitachi 2 GB hard drive on Amazon). OS X IS FOR DEVELOPERS that actually want to ship and sell product. Period.

jameskatt 16y ago

yMcDonald 16y ago

Eclipse. That's enough to turn any iMac (well, any computers) into a programmer's powerhouse. Last year, I led a small team of 3 devs to build a homebrew app for the NDS portable game console. We all used different OSes/IDE for development out of necessity (WinXp, Linux/Eclipse, MacOS X/xCode). Although I had no problem installing arm-gcc on the Mac and configure xCode to use the NDS-specific toolchain, I still prefer Eclipse. Maybe xCode 4 will change that perception... Looking forward to give it a spin... Yves McDonald

AppleDev 16y ago

I think Zack goes to great length to spread FUD by leaving out facts. First of all, you can join the iPhone developers program "FOR FREE" and download the Xcode tools for free (you just can't release iPhone apps on the app store with the free membership). And yes, a 4.5 GB download is quite large to be sure. However, as the previous poster points out, it's a few hours a year at most. Even if you download all the beta releases too. A large majority of mac users have a cable internet connections making it a non-issue. Really a small price to pay (download size) given the quality of the tool set Apple provides. And Price, have you checked the PRICE and download sizes of Microsoft's Visual Studio and SQL Server lately? And your argument about all this work to use one of your gems is ridiculous. Anyone who does rails or ruby development and Uses a mac for development already has the proper tools installed. and by the content of your article, knows substantially more than you about developing on OS X. Finally, Buying a new Mac gives you the latest tool set on DVD. I really think this post made for 1 or all of the following reasons. Some people just hate Apple because they have managed to succeed during the worst economic downfall since the depression. Not only succeed, but thrive despite the higher price of their Superior quality products and Software. The same way some hate Microsoft just because they are Microsoft. No rational, logical, or even factual reasons given, just Apple/Microsoft Bashing. More a demonstration of these peoples IQ than anything else. Bashing Apple is currently in Vogue. Those posters with a lack of knowledge, but trying build a following are jumping on the bash Apple train trying to establish credibility. Judging by Zack's article, you've achieved the opposite. You have demonstrated your LACK of ability and knowledge.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

I can't stand developing on a Mac. 1) Linux has better language/tool support. 2) Windows has (much) better dual-screen support.