No More Codewarrior for Mac OS X 84
wandazulu writes "According to an announcement posted on the Carbon developer's mailing list, Metrowerks announced at AdHoc that the forthcoming release of CodeWarrior 10 will be the last for Mac OS X. This isn't surprising given that Apple is transitioning to Intel chips and Metrowerks has exited the Intel market, but it's still the end of an era. CodeWarrior literally saved Apple's bacon during the transition to PowerPC in the early 1990s by shipping the first working set of developer tools for the new platform. And since then CodeWarrior has been the main toolkit for commercial development on the Mac (especially pre-Xcode)."
Do you know what 'literally' means? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Won't compile for Intel (Score:1)
Re:Won't compile for Intel (Score:2, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, Television Can't Do Thát On You.
Re:Won't compile for Intel (Score:1)
This is not at all what Rosetta is for. Rosetta is there to allow one to run legacy ppc code on intel. When one is writing new code -- using Code Warrior, xCode, or whatever -- one uses that tool to compile code that is native to the target machine(s). No self-respecting developer would compil
Re:Won't compile for Intel (Score:2)
This just in... Java developers have no self respect.
Re:Won't compile for Intel (Score:2)
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that Java developers do have any self respect.
Re:Won't compile for Intel (Score:1)
It's an instruction translator, much like Java translates byte code into native code.
Re:Won't compile for Intel (Score:2)
where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since they're owned by Motorola, they're not going anywhere. Among other processor architectures, most PPC based hardware will use Metrowerk's compilers. The Gamecube, for example, uses them.
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:1)
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:2)
In case you haven't yet noticed, all new consoles use PPC chips like the Gamecube. So Gamecube-like consoles are in fact going everywhere. I don't know if Metrowerks CodeWarrior is the dev environment of choice for these three new consoles, but since the cube also used IBM's flavour of PPC chips and not Moto's, but CodeWarrior was used anyway, I guess there's a big chance it's going to be used for the new consoles, too.
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:1)
It's not. (Which is too bad, because I liked CodeWarrior for PS2 and GC quite a bit.)
FWIW, I was playing a word game with "not going anywhere," not making comment about the technology.
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:2)
Do you happen to know what the PS3 is going to use? Something from IBM?
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:1)
Not just GCC... (Score:2)
Revolution will probably be stuck with Codewarrior (bleah), unless someone e
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:5, Informative)
Metrowerks' About Page [metrowerks.com]
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:2)
Right, you're correct. In my mind, Moto and Freescale are still kind of one entity :-)
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:2)
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:2)
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:1)
On the other hand, Visual Studio works for me, although completely unofficially. Been too lazy to install another IDE
Re:where is metrowerks going to go from here? (Score:2)
CodeWarrior stopped being premier 3 years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
83% of Mac developers use XCode primarily
74% of commercial Mac developers use XCode primarily.
Commercial being Microsoft, Symantec, and companies of that size.
CodeWarrior was a great product, but this isn't near as big a loss as the story text implies. Most CodeWarrior users have long since moved over to XCode.
Mainly because PowerPlant was much harder to use imo.
FUD! (Score:4, Informative)
83% of Mac developers use XCode primarily
74% of commercial Mac developers use XCode primarily.
Source?? This is FUD, and that's the reason the parent poster was AC--ugh!
If you read the xcode apple maillist or develop mac os software for large scale apps, you'd know the figures are actually around the opposite. The truth of the matter is that the latest version of Xcode, 2.1, still has *major* potholes for any medium sized or larger projects. A simple read through the last few weeks of the xcode users apple maillist will reveal this--CodeWarrior users are furious since they're effectively being told that they need to use Xcode (b/c of the intel switch) while Xcode is a far cry from being able to swallow medium (or larger) projects (I myself am in this situation).
Xcode 2.2 promises to stop of the bleeding, but even one of the apple xcode devs said point blank that many of the UI inadequacies won't be addressed until the "next major release" (meaning Xcode 3! -- how far is *that* off?). And then there's GCC 4.0 being broken for certain things. Sure, this has nothing to do with Xcode, but it's more reason CW people like myself are still totally turned off from making the switch.
Anyway, what's more scary is the wacko who posted the parent comment--to just blatantly make up weird shit like that--wtf.
Re:FUD! (Score:2)
Re:FUD! (Score:2)
Apple uses Xcode, yes, but many of the large "commercial" apps the original post was referring use carbon. It's highly speculated that at the last WWDC, the purpose of all the rah-rah-rah of Xcode and all the speakers telling us how great it is to move to Xcode was to get the mountain of codewarrior users was to get us switch to Xcode.
But do
Re:FUD! (Score:2)
Presumably you meant "use CodeWarrior"; using Carbon doesn't, as far as I know, prevent you from using XCode.
Re:FUD! (Score:2)
Presumably you meant "use CodeWarrior"; using Carbon doesn't, as far as I know, prevent you from using XCode.
I did mean carbon, actually. CW's cocoa support is always 6+ months behind the curve (if not grossly more) and is widely considered to not be a viable option for serious cocoa development. From everyhing I know and see, it's for two reasons: 1) apple (purposely) does not proact
"FUD" is a probably a bad guess (Score:2)
Also, some of those still using CodeWarrior are not doing so out of love. They are doing so because they are using legacy code or
Re:Nobody cares (Score:1, Redundant)
Get some learnin under your belt junior and come back and try again.
Who? Oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's subsidies were propping up MetroWerks and when Apple started looking like a losing horse they started porting their dev tools to every platform they could. They haven't really put much effort into their Mac product since the late-90s when they started their shotgun approach to product development. They basically took their IDE and debugger and ported them to every damn platform they could find. None of their ports were really planned out, they just hoped one or two would stick and pay for the rest of the company. As they moved into new markets they put their existing products essentially in maintenance mode. They were on the verge of bankruptcy when they got Motorola to buy them out in 1999. When Motorola spun off their chip division as Freescale they sent MetroWerks with it.
There was little chance of MetroWerks supporting Apple's move to Intel, they hardly support Apple on PowerPC chips. Most of what used to be MetroWerks is now Freescale supporting Freescale products. What used to be the MetroWerks of old is long gone.
Apple is smart to release their own usable IDE and give it away to anyone that wants it. It lowers the barrier of entry to Mac development to simply purchasing a Mac. If you want to write the Next Big Thing you can plunk down a few bucks for a Mac mini and sign up for a free ADC account and a couple of mailing lists. Just a few years ago the only feasible option would be to fork over a few hundred dollars to MetroWerks or suffer with a painfully outdated MPW. Apple also gets to be really flexible with their architectures as the Intel switch is showing. Symantec's decline in interest on the Mac could have doomed the PowerPC lines if MetroWerks hadn't come along when it did. What happened to Symantec is now happing to MetroWerks. Instead of waiting for someone else to rescue Mac develop efforts Apple made Project Builder good and called it Xcode.
Re:Who? Oh... (Score:2)
Well, MetroWerks did have good swag. I still wear my "Blood, Sweat, and Code" t-shirt, and I love the "factory floor" scenes they put on some of their stuff.
Re:Who? Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
The end of MacHack (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The end of MacHack (Score:1)
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Great (Score:2, Interesting)
The news about CW are terrible. xcode is really, really bad; it's probably easier to use gcc with your own build scripts and text editor. I've made Atlantis (http://www.funpause.com/atlantis/ [funpause.com]) in about 250 hours with codewarrior and ptk; with xcode I don't know how long it would have taken. Even compilation on xcode is slow, thanks to gcc 4.0-appl
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:1)
Best regards,
Emmanuel
Re:Great (Score:2)
(personally, I hate GUI compilers, I much prefer to work with a Makefile and "vi"
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:2)
Doesn't happen. You type "make" and it does it all for you. The first program I wrote for VAXC on VMS was an implementation of Make... and this was back before the Macintosh existed.
In the rare case where you need command line options, you put them in a Make variable and it uses them everywhere.
Then for the output, there's this great program called "error" that I first ran into at Berkeley in 1981. You pipe your output through that, and it puts all th
Re:Great (Score:1)
Re:Great (Score:1)
Re:Great (Score:2)
It's a superficial emulation of vi at best.
If you don't change the default settings it pretty much acts as dumb as vi.
If your understanding of vi is so shallow that you think "it pretty much acts as dumb as vi" is an amusing bon-mot, you probably wouldn't understand the answer.
Re:Great (Score:1)
If your understanding of vi is so shallow that you think "it pretty much acts as dumb as vi" is an amusing bon-mot, you probably wouldn't understand the answer.
Re:Great (Score:2)
The thing about vi is that it's not really a modal editor. That is, the way the editing commands work don't really match very well to the idea of a "mode". If you think of it as being a command-based editor like TECO, but with better feedback, it's a lot more comfortable to use.
So you don't hit "i" to go into "insert mode", and "ESC" to go to "command mode", you enter a single command "iwhatever the text isESC".
Wh
Re:Great (Score:1)
Re:Great (Score:2)
I'm not sure I get what you mean by it not really being modal.
If it was modal, then when you type "i" you would just change mode. You would then type a bunch of stuff and then hit "ESC". At this point if you hit "u" for undo it would undo the last character you typed. Instead, it undoes everything between the "i" and the "esc". Because what really happened is you executed an "insert this text" command, that started with the "i" and went on to the "
Re:Great (Score:1)
Intel decision wasn't a blood oath (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Intel decision wasn't a blood oath (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much - they sold their x86 tools to Nokia a month or so before WWDC, and that type of transfer typically includes a "you don't get to claw it back later" clause. Which I guess would have been a reasonable thing to agree to at the time, as what are the chances Apple are going to switch to x86...
Re:Intel decision wasn't a blood oath (Score:2)
Re:Intel decision wasn't a blood oath (Score:3, Informative)
Gosh Darn it !! (Score:1)
adobe? (Score:2)
Motorola / Freescale / Metrowerks (Score:2)