Re: [ANN] Xcode + Leopard at WWDC this year
Re: [ANN] Xcode + Leopard at WWDC this year
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Xcode + Leopard at WWDC this year
- From: Steve Baxter <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:35:32 +0100
On 18 Jul 2006, at 23:58, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 7/18/06, Steve Baxter <email@hidden> wrote:
Xcode 2.3 works
so well, these would make it perfect!
Xcode works well? That's news to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a
steaming pile of shit.
OK, I'll qualify what I said. Xcode 2.3 works great:
- On an Intel iMac (the Intel compiler is so much faster than the PPC
one it just isn't funny)
- With lots of RAM (2GB is pretty essential)
- With DWARF debugging (this has cleared up pretty much every
debugging problem for us)
1) It's too damn slow. At times, I can type faster than it can
process the keystrokes.
How big are your files? We have one file per class as a strictish
rule so I guess we don't see this.
2) It's too damn slow. I once opened a 100kb source file. It took
Xcode five minutes to open the file and syntax-color it.
See (1). Maybe break up your files a bit?
3) It's too damn slow. Any time you modify and save a header file, it
takes 30 seconds or so for the spinning pizza to stop.
4) It's too damn slow. It never takes less than a second for Xcode to
respond to any UI action, and often it takes long enough for the
spinning pizza to show up.
I've not seen this - editing seems to work pretty well now.
5) It's too damn slow. When doing a "find in files", it takes 10-15
minutes for the results to show up. "grep" would be better, except
that a recursive grep does a full-text search of hundred-megabyte
temporary files. A spotlight search would be better, except that it
doesn't highlight results within files, just which files match.
I think I covered this as one of the problems Xcode still has.
6) It doesn't support separate "debug" and "release" versions of
libraries.
You can set this up - you just need to get the settings right. In
fact, I thought this worked by default?
7) It doesn't support alternate compilers.
8) It uses too much memory -- I've got a gigabyte in my computer, and
linking sends the computer into a half-hour frenzy of thrashing the
hard drive.
True - you need 2GB for Xcode development. The cost is small though.
9) It produces huge executables -- the debug version of our program is
just over a gigabyte in size.
DWARF has completely fixed this for me.
10) The UI is about as un-Apple as you can get. When I'm using a Mac,
I don't expect to need to refer to the GCC man page on a regular
basis.
I feel here that most of the settings have a nice UI. If you want to
tinker with more advanced settings, yes it is a bit more tricky, but
then you are supposed to be an expert rather than a naive user. I
actually think Apple have done quite a nice job of the settings.
xcconfig files are a godsend for complex projects. Our Windows guys
can spend literally hours changing 70-odd plugins when we want to
tweak a setting globally. It takes 10 seconds in Xcode.
I hated Xcode when I first started using it, and we were dragged
kicking and screaming away from CW when we finally wanted to move to
Intel. Xcode 2.3 really is a dramatic improvement IMHO.
Cheers,
Steve.
Steve Baxter
Software Development Manager
Improvision
+44-2476-692229
_______________________________________________
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