 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Programming / Mac Programming / November 2005What do you think about Xcode ?
Hello, I am not a professional, but occasional programmer. I will thus like that you deliver your opinion to me on XCode of APPLE. Like it? And for which reason? Thank you > I will thus like that you deliver your opinion to me on XCode of APPLE. > > Like it? And for which reason? It doesn't matter whether you like it. If you're going to write Mac OS X programs, going forward you're going to have to use Xcode. m.  Signaturematt neuburg, phd = matt@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/ Tiger - http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/tiger-customizing.html AppleScript - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005571 Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com > It doesn't matter whether you like it. If you're going to write Mac OS X > programs, going forward you're going to have to use Xcode. XCode, the IDE, is totally optional, thank god. It's the underlying tools (gcc primarily) which you have to use in a way or another. SignatureLuc Heinrich Hi David, unfortunately, it will be the only IDE for the Mac, soon. Unfortunately, because it is inconvenient and buggy (compared to CodeWarrior when using only C / C++ code). Examples: 1) Inconvenient: It costs a lot of time to build up project with a reasonable number of files as XCode is very strict on the file endings. The file endings determine which compiler / program is called to handle which file. If you have an ending that is not in the standard ending range.... Good luck! Also if you move around your files from one location to another one it is a hazzle to let XCode find them again. Etc. 2) Buggy: It crashes on an irregular basis my project file and I have to re-built them from scratch (as the linking does not work anymore correctly and I have not found out yet what exactly happens). This leads to point 1 again. Crashes once in a while. Etc. XCode 2.0 or lower was an even bigger pain. Hartwig > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you > It costs a lot of time to build up project with a reasonable number of > files as XCode is very strict on the file endings. The file endings > determine which compiler / program is called to handle which file. If > you have an ending that is not in the standard ending range.... Good luck! You can change this easily (for each individual file) in Xcode. patrick > Hi David, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > determine which compiler / program is called to handle which file. If > you have an ending that is not in the standard ending range.... Good luck! This is incorrect. Xcode uses the file extension to determine the file type by default, but you can change the type to anything you want. If you get info on the file in the project, the info window has a File Type popup which you can use to change the type. > Also if you move around your files from one location to another one it > is a hazzle to let XCode find them again. This one is certainly true. However, getting info on the files again, you can use the Choose button to reconnect them, or you can delete the files from the project and re-add them. Neither is an ideal solution. > 2) Buggy: > It crashes on an irregular basis my project file and I have to re-built > them from scratch (as the linking does not work anymore correctly and I > have not found out yet what exactly happens). This leads to point 1 again. > Crashes once in a while. Etc. > XCode 2.0 or lower was an even bigger pain. This is why we have version control. If your project gets corrupted (which, by the way, I have never seen), then you just fetch the last working version out of your CVS/subversion/whatever repository and pick up where you left off. If you don't use version control, this is one example of why you should. SignatureMichael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software > > ... > > 2) Buggy: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > where you left off. If you don't use version control, this is one example > of why you should. Especially since installing Subversion (a truly industrial strength system) is as simple on OS X as './configure; make; sudo make install'. Not using it is like driving a car without brakes. The code it saves *will* be your own. For a ground-up rationale, see: http://leyton.org/techiemusings/2005/06/06/version-control-a-misunderstood-techn ology/ For the Subversion Book (thorough documentation): http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/svn-book.html For the Subversion home page: http://subversion.tigris.org/ >>>... >>>2) Buggy: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > For the Subversion home page: http://subversion.tigris.org/ I've actually had trouble building and using Subversion from source on OS X. But these binary packages have worked very well for me: http://www.codingmonkeys.de/mbo/ -Peter SignaturePull out a splinter to reply. > >>>... > >>>2) Buggy: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I've actually had trouble building and using Subversion from source on > OS X. What kind of trouble? Worked fine for me with 10.4.2, but I did not opt for BDB. The built-in FSFS repository format is quite satisfactory. Were you setting up Apache for http(s) access? I was only using local file:// access. > But these binary packages have worked very well for me: > http://www.codingmonkeys.de/mbo/ There is also Metissian: http://metissian.com/projects/macosx/subversion/ > -Peter >>>Especially since installing Subversion (a truly industrial strength >>>system) is as simple on OS X as './configure; make; sudo make install'. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What kind of trouble? If I remember, the client either hung, or reported an error about the stream being unexpectedly truncated. I was never able to figure out what was going on. > Worked fine for me with 10.4.2, but I did not opt > for BDB. The built-in FSFS repository format is quite satisfactory. > Were you setting up Apache for http(s) access? I was only using local > file:// access. Nope, I was only trying to build and use the client. The server was running their own build of subversion on BSD; maybe there was some incompatibility there. In any case, if you move around a lot (like me) and you're too lazy to back up your work (like me), then consider getting someone more planted and conscientious to do your Subversion hosting (like I did). I'll never develop without it again. I get it as part of my web hosting package at http://textdrive.com/ (no affiliation) >>But these binary packages have worked very well for me: >>http://www.codingmonkeys.de/mbo/ > > There is also Metissian: > http://metissian.com/projects/macosx/subversion/ Thanks for the link. -Peter SignaturePull out a splinter to reply. > >>>Especially since installing Subversion (a truly industrial strength > >>>system) is as simple on OS X as './configure; make; sudo make install'. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > running their own build of subversion on BSD; maybe there was some > incompatibility there. The only thing I can think of is perhaps your client source was so old that you encountered a bug that has since been fixed? I've only been using 1.x - although at one place of work they had some RH FC1 systems that were using a 0.3x client (!!!) quite happily to a 1.1.x server. > In any case, if you move around a lot (like me) and you're too lazy to > back up your work (like me), then consider getting someone more planted > and conscientious to do your Subversion hosting (like I did). I'll > never develop without it again. My sentiments too. Like yours, my repositories are on a colocated server. > I get it as part of my web hosting package at http://textdrive.com/ (no > affiliation) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Peter Hi Michael, ad (1): of course I can do it file by file. But this is not what I want because it is quite annoying to change 100 files only because the IDE does not recognize them. This is the reason why I call the XCode IDE inconvenient. ad (2): I do not need version control because I do not mix up the project but XCode does it automatically. I do not want to use anything just because I have to work around bugs of the program I am using. >>Hi David, >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > where you left off. If you don't use version control, this is one example > of why you should. > Hi Michael, > > ad (1): of course I can do it file by file. But this is not what I want > because it is quite annoying to change 100 files only because the IDE > does not recognize them. > This is the reason why I call the XCode IDE inconvenient. I assume you're talking about the file type thing, not the file moving thing, right? Anyway, you can just select all of the files, get info, and set the file type for all 100 (or whatever) simultaneously. > ad (2): I do not need version control because I do not mix up the > project but XCode does it automatically. I do not want to use anything > just because I have to work around bugs of the program I am using. You kind of missed the point of my recommendation. I don't recommend using version control to work around Xcode bugs. I recommend using version control because it solves a large class of important an difficult problems for programmers, and this Xcode bug happens to be among them. In other words, I wasn't trying to say, "fix this bug by using version control." Rather, I was trying to say, "the amount of suffering you endure makes it clear that you aren't using version control, and you really should." Refusing to use version control with your source code is like insisting on writing an encyclopedia with nothing but a quill pen and paper. It can be done, and if you've never tried a word processor you might not even think it's a bad situation, but you're missing out on so much good stuff. SignatureMichael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software Also selecting 100 files that are not sorted by the type is annoying. I found version control more annoying than helpful. Therefore, I do not use it. Hartwig >>Hi Michael, >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > done, and if you've never tried a word processor you might not even think > it's a bad situation, but you're missing out on so much good stuff. > Also selecting 100 files that are not sorted by the type is annoying. > > I found version control more annoying than helpful. Therefore, I do not > use it. Though of course it can do many things that can't easily be done any other way - and it's indispensable if you work collaboratively. But then maybe you were using inferior tools. I recommend Subversion. > Hartwig > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > done, and if you've never tried a word processor you might not even think > > it's a bad situation, but you're missing out on so much good stuff. You get what you pay for. If I had to pay for this I'd be even more pissed off. Paul > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you That's also my opinion. But unfortunately there is no longer any alternative. Hartwig > You get what you pay for. If I had to pay for this I'd be even more pissed > off. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>Thank you > That's also my opinion. But unfortunately there is no longer any > alternative. There are great alternatives (such as Eclipse), depending what you are doing. What *are* you doing, btw? --T (who WILL try out Carbon programming in Eclipse, one day soon...) > Hartwig > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> > >>Thank you I am doing scientific programming in C++ (with the use of wxWidgets to be rather platform independent). Hartwig >>That's also my opinion. But unfortunately there is no longer any >>alternative. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> >>>>Thank you > I am doing scientific programming in C++ (with the use of wxWidgets to > be rather platform independent). In that case, Eclipse would be ideal: It fully supports C++ (although I haven't used its debugger on OS X in particular) and is perfect for cross-platform work. I use Eclipse (not Xcode) for all my projects on OS X (C, C++, assembler, Perl, shell scripts, etc). --Toby > Hartwig > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >>>> > >>>>Thank you > In that case, Eclipse would be ideal: It fully supports C++ (although I > haven't used its debugger on OS X in particular) and is perfect for > cross-platform work. I use Eclipse (not Xcode) for all my projects on > OS X (C, C++, assembler, Perl, shell scripts, etc). Can it handle Objective-C and Objective-C++? How hard is it to get started with Eclipse? Yvo > > In that case, Eclipse would be ideal: It fully supports C++ (although I > > haven't used its debugger on OS X in particular) and is perfect for > > cross-platform work. I use Eclipse (not Xcode) for all my projects on > > OS X (C, C++, assembler, Perl, shell scripts, etc). > Can it handle Objective-C and Objective-C++? It can handle any project you can write a makefile for. I have not used it with Objective-C, but this is something I'd like to explore some time. It appears there is not yet a plugin for things like Objective-C syntax highlighting and debugging, but no doubt many people are turning their thoughts to this. I don't use ObjC, or symbolic debuggers much, so this hasn't been an impediment to me. Debugging of C and C++ is well supported under Linux; I haven't tried that under OS X. Other Eclipse users may be able to confirm. With MinGW it's also possible to do Win32 cross-development. > How hard is it to get started with Eclipse? I found it simpler and more natural than Xcode. One other major plus for me was very slick Subversion integration through the Subclipse plugin. > Yvo |
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
|
©2009 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.