<strong>Not that I'm the coder Andrew is, but if MWCW is such a superior compiler compared to gcc 3.x - why on earth would Apple use the latter and not the former? Clearly there are things gcc 3.x offers that Codewarrior does not, otherwise they wouldn't use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>Simple.
CodeWarrior wasn't ready when Apple needed it. Remember, Mac OS X has been in the making for some five years. MWCW wasn't up to snuff when Apple needed to write certain core components.
It still isn't up to snuff apparently, otherwise why wouldn't Apple have made the he move to CW once they branched off from the 10.1 trunk? They certainly had plenty of time to make the switch....
<strong>otherwise why wouldn't Apple have made the he move to CW once they branched off from the 10.1 trunk?</strong><hr></blockquote>Not exactly. I haven't dealt with CodeWarrior since OS9 (good riddance!) but I believe I've read that there are a number of gcc-specific optimizations that wouldn't translate over to MWCW. Thus, Apple stays with gcc rather than have to start re-writing things again for CW.
Comments
<strong>Not that I'm the coder Andrew is, but if MWCW is such a superior compiler compared to gcc 3.x - why on earth would Apple use the latter and not the former? Clearly there are things gcc 3.x offers that Codewarrior does not, otherwise they wouldn't use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>Simple.
CodeWarrior wasn't ready when Apple needed it. Remember, Mac OS X has been in the making for some five years. MWCW wasn't up to snuff when Apple needed to write certain core components.
<strong>otherwise why wouldn't Apple have made the he move to CW once they branched off from the 10.1 trunk?</strong><hr></blockquote>Not exactly. I haven't dealt with CodeWarrior since OS9 (good riddance!) but I believe I've read that there are a number of gcc-specific optimizations that wouldn't translate over to MWCW. Thus, Apple stays with gcc rather than have to start re-writing things again for CW.