Apple releases Xcode 2.3
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05/23/xcode/index.php
In relation to the recent concerns of Adobe with Xcode and the use of it for the next Universal CS, how important is this update ?
In relation to the recent concerns of Adobe with Xcode and the use of it for the next Universal CS, how important is this update ?
Comments
efficient utilization of disk space
Hah, maybe they should start with the devkit itself. Yet another 900+MB for an update.
That's not my biggest problem. The documentation for Xcode has more than 100,000 files in it. My whole filesystem has 400,000 files or so. Why don't they compile and compress it into say a chm format?
I don't suppose they could make the updates smaller because of all the file changes but the updates never seem to get any better.
Compared to Codewarrior, Xcode is so slow. When I would hit compile in Codewarrior, it used to fly through the steps. I didn't like Codewarrior all that much because of having to buy it and the files included conflicted with system files but I sure miss the performance. I seem to say that a lot about OS X these days.
Originally posted by Marvin
Hah, maybe they should start with the devkit itself. Yet another 900+MB for an update.
That's not my biggest problem. The documentation for Xcode has more than 100,000 files in it. My whole filesystem has 400,000 files or so. Why don't they compile and compress it into say a chm format?
I don't suppose they could make the updates smaller because of all the file changes but the updates never seem to get any better.
Compared to Codewarrior, Xcode is so slow. When I would hit compile in Codewarrior, it used to fly through the steps. I didn't like Codewarrior all that much because of having to buy it and the files included conflicted with system files but I sure miss the performance. I seem to say that a lot about OS X these days.
A lot of that is GCC itself. Xcode does the best it can, but the GCC just isn't very good. I wish the Intel compilers supported Objective-C.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
A lot of that is GCC itself. Xcode does the best it can, but the GCC just isn't very good. I wish the Intel compilers supported Objective-C.
GCC is a cross-platform tool, therefore it must be as big as, or close to being this big, on every platform it supports, right? But it ain't. So stop blaming GCC for problems Apple has wrt to making things small. This is not isolated to GCC, this is just the way they operate. The other day I installed an update to iPhoto which weighed at around 56MB. I can install at least 3 different photo management programs and still not be able to approach that size.
Maybe they should look into efficient programming. And no, the Intel compilers don't deliver that.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
GCC is a cross-platform tool, therefore it must be as big as, or close to being this big, on every platform it supports, right? But it ain't. So stop blaming GCC for problems Apple has wrt to making things small. This is not isolated to GCC, this is just the way they operate. The other day I installed an update to iPhoto which weighed at around 56MB. I can install at least 3 different photo management programs and still not be able to approach that size.
Maybe they should look into efficient programming. And no, the Intel compilers don't deliver that.
Did I say the GCC was big? No, I said it was slow. (edit: actually, I realize I was completely unclear. Sorry.)
iPhoto is large because it comes loaded with tacky templates.
Originally posted by BigBlue
So this update is not going to help Adobe much. We (they) have to wait for Xcode 3.0 or something ...
Adobe isn't waiting for a magical panacea. They just held off Xcode previously because it's incredibly buggy and they're delaying it now because the Intel switch happened when they were already knee-deep working on CS 3.0 (although I imagine that there's lots of political reasons as well.)
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Adobe isn't waiting for a magical panacea. They just held off Xcode previously because it's incredibly buggy and they're delaying it now because the Intel switch happened when they were already knee-deep working on CS 3.0 (although I imagine that there's lots of political reasons as well.)
So if Xcode is - according to Adobe - unusable in it's present state, and Codewarrior don't do Universal, how on earth are they gonna finish CS3 Universal ? And what are they all doing in the meantime (= now) ?
Originally posted by BigBlue
So if Xcode is - according to Adobe - unusable in it's present state, and Codewarrior don't do Universal, how on earth are they gonna finish CS3 Universal ? And what are they all doing in the meantime (= now) ?
It's not unusable. It's just a pain to use. I use it all the time and it works fine enough. None of the bugs are fatal, they're just annoying. Adobe will convert to Xcode, they're probably already done converting the CS3 branch, but it wasn't worth the effort earlier.
For the record, there's really only three bugs I run into all the time. First, when there's an error in your code, a little window comes up with the details and brings you to a place where you can edit it. Sometimes this doesn't update as you type, which is rather distressing and potentially dangerous. Another is that sometimes every single character you type beeps until you start a new line. Most annoying though is that there's a shortcut menu for functions in a source file that takes forever to populate. I can't tell you how many cumulative hours I've wasted waiting for this thing.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
GCC is a cross-platform tool, therefore it must be as big as, or close to being this big, on every platform it supports, right? But it ain't. So stop blaming GCC for problems Apple has wrt to making things small. This is not isolated to GCC, this is just the way they operate. The other day I installed an update to iPhoto which weighed at around 56MB. I can install at least 3 different photo management programs and still not be able to approach that size.
Maybe they should look into efficient programming. And no, the Intel compilers don't deliver that.
I think Apple's problem is the way it handles localizations...a little update to a .nib file requires a download of all the localizations (which are ridiculously huge for some reason).
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I think Apple's problem is the way it handles localizations...a little update to a .nib file requires a download of all the localizations (which are ridiculously huge for some reason).
Funny you should mention that. I was looking at a way of saving some space on my hard drive recently and I remembered something called delocalizer. There's also a program called monolingual ( http://monolingual.sourceforge.net/ ) that does the same thing.
I didn't expect it to clean up 1.2GB of space and remove over 112,000 files. It moved so many files to trash that the Finder hung up when I tried to open the trash.
So that's 112,000 in localizations and about 100,000 in Apple's developer docs. My total HD is 400,000 so half of all the files are there unnecessarily.
I expect this kind of bloat from Microsoft but Apple needs to make things a bit leaner. A Leopard should definitely be leaner than a big fat Tiger.
Notes: if you want to use monolingual, make sure you look at the preferences first to make sure you are moving the right files. It says in the FAQ to not include Adobe stuff (something about self-healing) but my CS had no problem.
Originally posted by Placebo
I think the Macs should come preinstalled with English localizations only and during the Setup Assistant if the user chooses another language, a message will pop up in that language for the user to insert an included CD of localizations, which when inserted will install the extra files.
Yet another dumb statement by Placebo.? How are people that don't understand english going to figure how to set the language if everything is localized in English at start?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Yet another dumb statement by Placebo.? How are people that don't understand english going to figure how to set the language if everything is localized in English at start?
The same way they understand what it means when they're told:
"Please choose your language below"
when they first power up their computer.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
The same way they understand what it means when they're told:
"Please choose your language below"
when they first power up their computer.
When most people first power up their computer, the OS is in their native language.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
When most people first power up their computer, the OS is in their native language.
If Apple is able to localize the machines according to each specific country, why not just provide the language of the country by itself and nothing else?
Or do I get my native language (say it's... Spanish) when I buy the computer from a store in London?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
When most people first power up their computer, the OS is in their native language.
Eh, what? Every Mac that I've had through my hands (and that's a lot) starts with a screen containing 15 list items saying 'Use XX for the main language' in the 15 languages.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If Apple is able to localize the machines according to each specific country, why not just provide the language of the country by itself and nothing else?
They don't. Every Mac leaving the manufacturer has the exact same software on the hard drive.
Does anyone know how large numbers of files affects a file system? I imagine that cutting down the number of files by a few hundred thousand must be doing some good. It'll make Spotlight indexing a lot faster on a rebuild anyway.
Concerning the devkit, I just put some of the documentation on a compressed dmg and it saved about 500-600MB of space as well as cut down the number of files by 50,000 or so.
I think Apple needs to use a better compiler than gcc. I read somewhere they compile the OS with it too. Fom this article:
http://www.ctoforaday.com/archives/000019.html
it seems you can get far better binaries (50%+ speed improvement) with other compilers. Maybe this is one reason why OS X is slower compared to Windows on the same machine.
Hopefully Apple will offer a choice between gcc and the Intel compilers. Either that or the gcc crew will get their ass in gear and deliver us some auto-vectorization that actually works. I think what gives Intel compilers the edge is support of both auto-vectorization and openMP.
I've seen new Macs ship with french as default out-of-the-box. I'm sorry if you've never had that pleasurable experience.
As for Gene's question...that *is* a good question...I have no clue why Apple insists on shipping with all localizations. Apple should at least give the option to clean up localizations that are, for certain, not going to be used.
Originally posted by JLL
They don't. Every Mac leaving the manufacturer has the exact same software on the hard drive.
Of course they don't. That was my whole point. They have an image that they install on every computer they send out. It could be a 60 GiB MacBook; it'll still get the same software as the others (my Core Duo mini came with 15 GiB of installed crap. 15 GiB! - half of which was drivers for printers I'll never use, a lot of it languages I'll never use and some of it games I'll never use.)
There must be a better way of doing this.