Newtek should be there quite quickly with Lightwave. Seeing as they have redone the architecture.
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal.
Easier than doing a Carbon port?
Lemon Bon Bon [/B]
So, will this likely be just Lightwave 9?
*edit, as opposed to Lightwave 8 student which I got a few months ago. I won't be a student when 9 comes out, and won't be able to afford it w/o an education verison.
I don't get this. According to this article, Intel is not even in demo stage yet for their OSX development tools/compilers (to be included in Xcode). How does everyone already writes and compiles their software to MacIntel ? Is Xcode 'good enough' to do this ?
I don't get this. According to this article, Intel is not even in demo stage yet for their OSX development tools/compilers (to be included in Xcode). How does everyone already writes and compiles their software to MacIntel ? Is Xcode 'good enough' to do this ?
People are using gcc. Please note that Intel's compilers can't make Universal Binaries and will probably not be used generally.
How does everyone already writes and compiles their software to MacIntel ? Is Xcode 'good enough' to do this ?
Actually, Intel is working on a different compiler of their own. XCode 2.1 will already produce universal binaries. This was announced on the first day of the WWDC back in July.
People are using gcc. Please note that Intel's compilers can't make Universal Binaries and will probably not be used generally.
Intel's compilers cannot do PPC code, but that doesn't matter. You can set Xcode to use ICC (Intel) for x86 and GCC or XLC (IBM) for PPC. The merging into a fat/universal binary has nothing to do with the compiler. It is done by lipo.
True (and Objective C++). H owever, the real benefit in a compiler like ICC or XLC doesn't lie in object-oriented code anyway, but in mathematical computation code, which you should be writing in C.
Comments
(Done very quickly.)
Modo by 'Son of Newtek' is, sorry, Luxology.
(It was ready within days of the keynote.)
Mathematica is.
Several thirdy party apps.
Newtek should be there quite quickly with Lightwave. Seeing as they have redone the architecture.
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal.
Easier than doing a Carbon port?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Newtek should be there quite quickly with Lightwave. Seeing as they have redone the architecture.
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal.
Easier than doing a Carbon port?
Lemon Bon Bon [/B]
So, will this likely be just Lightwave 9?
*edit, as opposed to Lightwave 8 student which I got a few months ago. I won't be a student when 9 comes out, and won't be able to afford it w/o an education verison.
Originally posted by BigBlue
I don't get this. According to this article, Intel is not even in demo stage yet for their OSX development tools/compilers (to be included in Xcode). How does everyone already writes and compiles their software to MacIntel ? Is Xcode 'good enough' to do this ?
People are using gcc. Please note that Intel's compilers can't make Universal Binaries and will probably not be used generally.
My uh.. developer team went on strike to protest the fact that my game is being used for military training in working with the mentally disabled.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Originally posted by BigBlue
How does everyone already writes and compiles their software to MacIntel ? Is Xcode 'good enough' to do this ?
Actually, Intel is working on a different compiler of their own. XCode 2.1 will already produce universal binaries. This was announced on the first day of the WWDC back in July.
Originally posted by JLL
People are using gcc. Please note that Intel's compilers can't make Universal Binaries and will probably not be used generally.
Intel's compilers cannot do PPC code, but that doesn't matter. You can set Xcode to use ICC (Intel) for x86 and GCC or XLC (IBM) for PPC. The merging into a fat/universal binary has nothing to do with the compiler. It is done by lipo.
Originally posted by Chucker
Intel's compilers cannot do PPC code
And Objective-C.
Originally posted by JLL
And Objective-C.
True (and Objective C++). H owever, the real benefit in a compiler like ICC or XLC doesn't lie in object-oriented code anyway, but in mathematical computation code, which you should be writing in C.