 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Programming / CodeWarrior / August 2005the future of codewarrior ?
Hello It's not very clear for me, but i would like to know if there will still be new versions pf codewarrior for mac ppc ? I mean that's ok if they don't support intel, as long as i can compile for Mac os X PPC, it's fine with me. (i can just recompile my -final- app with xcode ) The problem is that with my actual project, codewarrior compiles 9 times faster than XCode. Xcode is just not a productive option for us. Will there be more codewarrior for mac or is it totally dead ? thank you pat. > It's not very clear for me, but i would like to know if there will still be > new versions pf codewarrior for mac ppc ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The problem is that with my actual project, codewarrior compiles 9 times > faster than XCode. Xcode is just not a productive option for us. Your problem is with the GCC compiler supplied with Apple's Developer Tools, not with Xcode itself. Xcode attempts to compensate for the slowness of GCC by means of various facilities, including distributed compilation. > Will there be more codewarrior for mac or is it totally dead ? They have said there will be a maintenance patch released for CodeWarrior 9 shortly, followed by a new version, CodeWarrior 10, 'this fall'. CodeWarrior 10 is the end of the road. Details here: <news:ron.liechty-BE1299.12150101082005@news.newsguy.com> <news:ron.liechty-6C6396.11595001082005@news.newsguy.com> <news:ron.liechty-D86E48.12184101082005@news.newsguy.com> Alwyn Seems to be going that way, CW is going off into the sunset and becoming an IDE for Freescale processors. Have you investigated distributed compiles for Xcode ? If your project has a number of files this does the compile in parallel by sending to other Macs running Xcode in your network. Just install Xcode on the other machines and enable the distrubuted compile in the preferences. This will divide the compile time by N where N is the number of machines you have available. (Dual processor machines will run two compiles at once.) It doesn't load the other machines too much and there isn't a huge amount of network traffice (works fine over WiFi). While it would be nice to have as fast a compiler as CW that looks to be fading away but Xcode is viable if you have a "comple farm". --jim > While it would be nice to have as fast a compiler as CW that looks > to be fading away but Xcode is viable if you have a "comple farm". This seems not to be the case for the OP, but any of us who have to now test on Intel will automatically have at least a small "compile farm" ;-) > This seems not to be the case for the OP, but any of us who have to now > test > on Intel will automatically have at least a small "compile farm" ;-) Well that's kind of pathetic that we need 5 computers to do the job as fast as 1 could do ( and it's 5 years old ! ). Codewarrior is a jewel, that's a pity they're "discontinuing" (?) it . pat. > This seems not to be the case for the OP, but any of us who have to now test > on Intel will automatically have at least a small "compile farm" ;-) Unfortunately, Xcode doesn't currently allow x86 and PPC machines to participate in the same build farm. I expect this will be fixed in due course... Richard. > > While it would be nice to have as fast a compiler as CW that looks > > to be fading away but Xcode is viable if you have a "comple farm". > > This seems not to be the case for the OP, but any of us who have to now test > on Intel will automatically have at least a small "compile farm" ;-) Actually, you won't, at least not today. Distributed builds currently can only distribute to the same architecture. -Eric  SignatureEric Albert ejalbert@cs.stanford.edu http://outofcheese.org/ > It's not very clear for me, but i would like to know if there will still be > new versions pf codewarrior for mac ppc ? Recent postings on this list explain this is detail. > I mean that's ok if they don't support intel, as long as i can compile for > Mac os X PPC, it's fine with me. (i can just recompile my -final- app with > xcode ) > > The problem is that with my actual project, codewarrior compiles 9 times > faster than XCode. Xcode is just not a productive option for us. I know Xcode is slower than CW, but I've never heard 9 times. Two to three is more typical, so you might look into what's causing to be so slow. You could try asking on Apple's Xcode mailing list. Larry > It's not very clear for me, but i would like to know if there will still be > new versions pf codewarrior for mac ppc ? Yes, there will be one more major release: CW 10. > I mean that's ok if they don't support intel, as long as i can compile for > Mac os X PPC, it's fine with me. (i can just recompile my -final- app with > xcode ) That's exactly how I'm working too. > Will there be more codewarrior for mac or is it totally dead ? I think CW is viable for the short and medium term... but not in the long term sadly. >> I think CW is viable for the short and medium term... but not in the long term sadly. I was at the macHack session where Metrowerks announced their plans, and CW 10 is expected to be the last version of the compiler. Due out this fall, its life is essentially good until the first MacIntels are released, which is supposed to be next summer. >> I think CW is viable for the short and medium term... but not in the long term sadly. > > I was at the macHack session where Metrowerks announced their plans, > and CW 10 is expected to be the last version of the compiler. Due out > this fall, its life is essentially good until the first MacIntels are > released, which is supposed to be next summer. And the millions of PowerPC Macs disappear from this planet at that time? Sure... ;-) > >> I think CW is viable for the short and medium term... but not in the long term sadly. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And the millions of PowerPC Macs disappear from this planet at that > time? Sure... ;-) It will probably not work 100% on 10.5, but will still build binaries compatible w/ 10.4. It's unlikely that 10.4 / PPC-compatibility will be dropped any time soon, but it will be more difficult to access new technology that appears. Judging by past experience, new OS features will very quickly become Intel only (like it became PPC-only for performance reasons; then OSX-only, for uh, OS reasons; Intel-only will be either performance (ha) again, or just because they want to hurt stinkin' PPC users.) I usually recommend staying a year or two behind the leading edge on Mac anyway (I dodged major bullets w/ QuickDraw3D and especially OpenDoc that way, and you get lots more users if you don't require the newest version.) Unless you want or need to play with the very latest (and help Apple debug / stabilize their API), CW is probably good for a few years yet. Whether CW10 will be worth upgrading to from CW9 is anybody's guess. > > >> I think CW is viable for the short and medium term... but not in the > long term sadly. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > performance (ha) again, or just because they want to hurt stinkin' PPC > users.) I don't expect this to happen for a while. The introduction of Intel Macs will not be the end of PPC Macs. That should come about a year later. However, CW has always, understandably, encountered one or more problems in new releases of Mac OS, only now I don't know how long they'll keep CW 10 updated. Pro 9 has made it to 9.6, but I can't imagine we'll see a Pro 10.6. So my guess is that 10 will be useful until Apple ships a version of Mac OS X that breaks it, and that will probably be 10.5. > I usually recommend staying a year or two behind the leading edge on Mac Some people won't have this option. If your application runs under Rosetta, you're probably okay for a while. If not, then you don't have a version people can use on the Intel Macs, and that's bad business. You don't have anything to sell to the people buying new Macs and you look like you're lagging, both of which will take a toll on your revenues. > anyway (I dodged major bullets w/ QuickDraw3D and especially OpenDoc that > way, and you get lots more users if you don't require the newest version.) > Unless you want or need to play with the very latest (and help Apple debug / > stabilize their API), CW is probably good for a few years yet. Whether CW10 > will be worth upgrading to from CW9 is anybody's guess. For a hundred dollars, I'll give it a shot. :-) Larry >> CW is probably good for a few years yet. Whether CW10 >> will be worth upgrading to from CW9 is anybody's guess. > >For a hundred dollars, I'll give it a shot. :-) That is the price point I'm shooting for, I should have confirmation in a few weeks. This will probably be one price for all since almost everyone has at leat one copy of CW somewhere :) Ron SignatureCodeWarrior Community Forum is a free online resource for developers to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and our staff -- http://www.codewarrior.com/community -- Ron Liechty - ron.liechty@freescale.com - http://www.codewarrior.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.