3 ms·

As a developer I don't think I could go back. Unless I was working on a Windows stack. Knowing you have *nix under the hood is just too comforting.

by speg 13y ago

ams6110 13y ago
Exactly my feeling. If you're a developer, not doing .NET, Windows doesn't offer anything compelling. On a Mac, even if you're not doing IOS or Mac applications development, you have a complete Unix environment available. Even when I WAS doing .NET work on Windows (v1.1 timeframe) I would write my code in Emacs and compile it with csc. I don't think that's really very practical anymore.
- __david__ 13y ago
  A year or 2 ago I had a consulting gig that used C# and that was my technique--code in Emacs then alt-tab to Visual Studio to compile/run/debug. It worked perfectly fine. It's the same technique I use with XCode, except I can "M-x compile RET xcodebuild && open build/program.app RET" for most things and rarely even need to switch to XCode.
kenjackson 13y ago
Why would having Unix be more comforting than having the Windows kernel under the hood? I've found the NT kernel well designed.
falcolas 13y ago
Except... it's not '*nix' as everyone knows it (or more importantly as deployed in production). Even while working on a mac I do all of my linux development on a VM, because the differences are always such a stumbling block for me. Half the utilities do not support long args, no real repos (resulting in broken or missing tools), old versions of utilities... ugh. I still use one, but I'm seriously considering dual booting centos on the hardware.
- Camillo 13y ago
  Linux is not even UNIX.
- Turing_Machine 13y ago
  Mac OS X is Unix. Real Unix. Not Linux.
  - 65a 13y ago
    Trademark UNIX is like an expensive country club for vendor-proprietary "extensions" of BSD & SysV sensibilities. I'm suprised Apple wasn't a member sooner!
    - Turing_Machine 13y ago
      Expensive? Not at all. http://www.opensource.apple.com/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/ They've been (real) Unix since OS X first came out, actually.
- garyrichardson 13y ago
  And that's the way Unix was before Linux. Solaris, Irix, BSD.. all had different implementations of the basic unix tools. You're actually referring to the GNU tools and not the operating system. Linux came along and everyone was using distros of Linux + GNU tools installed. You could in theory compile non-GNU tools and run a linux kernel and you'd be just as perplexed as running on a mac. PROTIP: you can take any modern OS (Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris) and compile/install the GNU utilities and get long arg support and have all the tools behave the same way. In fact, if you were building an OS from scratch your fasted bootstrap would be kernel -> compile the GNU tools -> distribute.
revelation 13y ago
Except for the one too many bad wrinkles. Like not getting an up-to-date GCC and stdlibc++. Getting a somewhat recent clang is nice but worthless if you have to use a C++98 standard library.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

As a developer I don't think I could go back. Unless I was working on a Windows stack. Knowing you have *nix under the hood is just too comforting.

by speg 13y ago

As a developer I don't think I could go back. Unless I was working on a Windows stack. Knowing you have *nix under the hood is just too comforting.

ams6110 13y ago

Exactly my feeling. If you're a developer, not doing .NET, Windows doesn't offer anything compelling. On a Mac, even if you're not doing IOS or Mac applications development, you have a complete Unix environment available. Even when I WAS doing .NET work on Windows (v1.1 timeframe) I would write my code in Emacs and compile it with csc. I don't think that's really very practical anymore.

__david__ 13y ago
A year or 2 ago I had a consulting gig that used C# and that was my technique--code in Emacs then alt-tab to Visual Studio to compile/run/debug. It worked perfectly fine. It's the same technique I use with XCode, except I can "M-x compile RET xcodebuild && open build/program.app RET" for most things and rarely even need to switch to XCode.

kenjackson 13y ago

Why would having Unix be more comforting than having the Windows kernel under the hood? I've found the NT kernel well designed.

falcolas 13y ago

Except... it's not '*nix' as everyone knows it (or more importantly as deployed in production). Even while working on a mac I do all of my linux development on a VM, because the differences are always such a stumbling block for me. Half the utilities do not support long args, no real repos (resulting in broken or missing tools), old versions of utilities... ugh. I still use one, but I'm seriously considering dual booting centos on the hardware.

Camillo 13y ago
Linux is not even UNIX.
Turing_Machine 13y ago
Mac OS X is Unix. Real Unix. Not Linux.
- 65a 13y ago
  Trademark UNIX is like an expensive country club for vendor-proprietary "extensions" of BSD & SysV sensibilities. I'm suprised Apple wasn't a member sooner!
  - Turing_Machine 13y ago
    Expensive? Not at all. http://www.opensource.apple.com/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/ They've been (real) Unix since OS X first came out, actually.
garyrichardson 13y ago
And that's the way Unix was before Linux. Solaris, Irix, BSD.. all had different implementations of the basic unix tools. You're actually referring to the GNU tools and not the operating system. Linux came along and everyone was using distros of Linux + GNU tools installed. You could in theory compile non-GNU tools and run a linux kernel and you'd be just as perplexed as running on a mac. PROTIP: you can take any modern OS (Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris) and compile/install the GNU utilities and get long arg support and have all the tools behave the same way. In fact, if you were building an OS from scratch your fasted bootstrap would be kernel -> compile the GNU tools -> distribute.

revelation 13y ago

Except for the one too many bad wrinkles. Like not getting an up-to-date GCC and stdlibc++. Getting a somewhat recent clang is nice but worthless if you have to use a C++98 standard library.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]