I rhink it was more than just their need to vent. And I would like to see much more use of Intel's compilers.
It's quite an interesting position: you prefer the use of Intel's compiler over a 3rd party one, yet you don't prefer the use of the OS maker's IDE over a 3rd party one. My guess is that your position is pro-business motivated since both gcc and Xcode are free tools which have cut into the markets of commercial tools. Whereas I prefer tools based on a balance between quality and longevity (regardless of being free or commercial).
I'd personally avoid Intel's compiler unless I needed some particular feature only it had. Just in case Apple chooses to switch to a different CPU at some point. gcc supports so many CPUs that I see it being the compiler with the most longevity at this point.
Comments
I rhink it was more than just their need to vent. And I would like to see much more use of Intel's compilers.
It's quite an interesting position: you prefer the use of Intel's compiler over a 3rd party one, yet you don't prefer the use of the OS maker's IDE over a 3rd party one. My guess is that your position is pro-business motivated since both gcc and Xcode are free tools which have cut into the markets of commercial tools. Whereas I prefer tools based on a balance between quality and longevity (regardless of being free or commercial).
I'd personally avoid Intel's compiler unless I needed some particular feature only it had. Just in case Apple chooses to switch to a different CPU at some point. gcc supports so many CPUs that I see it being the compiler with the most longevity at this point.
And I would like to see much more use of Intel's compilers.
Developers can already use the Intel compiler with Xcode if they want to.