Re: CodeWarrior vs Xcode issues
Re: CodeWarrior vs Xcode issues
- Subject: Re: CodeWarrior vs Xcode issues
- From: Sebastien Metrot <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:57:53 +0200
Mike Pinkerton wrote:
email@hidden wrote on 6/7/05, 2:08 PM:
> Well, no they really don't. The tools are free.
I hate to be a stickler here, but they're not. As they don't run on
previous OS versions, they cost the price of an OS upgrade. Want to
build a universal binary? Everyone on the team must be running Tiger.
Actually I think it's even worse than that! If you want to support Intel
you have to use gcc 4.0, then you can't support 10.2 or 10.3 without
jumping thru hoops.
Developer support of previous OSes is currently a nightmare and it
should be adressed in a better way by Apple because while I'm perfectly
ready to upgrade each time a new OS is out, my clients often aren't so
keen to jump on the latest/brightest, but they still want bug fixes...
I understand very well that new features are only available on new OSes
and that specifically using and linking against the new frameworks will
prevent the use on a previous revision of the OS. What I don't
understand is that changing the version of the compiler will do the
same. I know the mac developers's comunity hates when we compare Apple
and the Arch-Rival microsoft but I can run binaries created with Visual
Studio 7.1 and even 8 (which is in beta) under Win95 and Win98. I don't
have to do anything special. Of course I can't use the new APIs that are
not present in those very old OSes, but in 99% of the time I just don't
care! And in the other 1% when I really need to access something new, I
can do the usual dynamic binding at runtime. One solution is developer
friendly, the other isn't.
--
Sebastien Metrot
Lead Dev.
http://www.usbsounds.com
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden