The notion that what Apple did was unfair misses or ignores several
important points:
OS X is and was Darwin. For at least as long as I have used OS X (since
10.1), I have also tested ideas on the Darwin x86 platform out of
curiosity. How blind do you have to be to not realize that Darwin was
being kept pretty close on the x86? Granted, I used KDE on the two
installs I managed to get running. Also, the system would also run on
Intel MBs with Intel chipsets. Darn curious why, but now we know.
How many Intel-ready languages already exist on the Intel-Mac platform?
Most of the ones shipping with OS X for Intel have been in the Darwin
x86 project for at least two years. Of course, these are "free" tools --
but they were ported and ready before the shocking announcement. The
difference? They aren't graphical development tools. These are console
tools, for the most part, meant to either work in a terminal window or
to serve up Web content.
Apple uses gcc 3.3/4.0 and includes several compiler / interpreters with
OS X. These aren't exactly proprietary. If you want to complain about
Xcode or Objective-C, that's different. I'll grant you that nobody else
has ever embraced Obj-C and no one is likely to do so. The Cocoa
framework is likely to remain uniquely Apple. This does not prevent
someone else from developing their own GUI concepts on top of OS X. To
my knowledge, absolutely nothing technical demanding that a compiler use
Apple's widget designs.
Freescale / Metrowerks did not keep current with IDE trends. They were
far more focused on their embedded chip business than either the G4 or
the PPC compiler. Apple was never a large enough client for Freescale or
IBM to do whatever Apple might want. Likewise, Apple isn't big enough to
get special treatment from Intel, either.
Intel's compilers for OS X are already in the hands of several companies
and I believe there is an open beta planned. Does Intel have an unfair
advantage in compiler technology? Maybe -- I know I'd substitute the
Intel compiler for gcc without hesitation.
The claim that Apple killed CodeWarrior is a simplification. Consider
Java support. If Java lived up to the hype, CW could have and should
have retained Java support -- thereby distinguishing the product as a
better IDE for crossplatform Java development than Xcode or JBuilder.
But, Metrowerks didn't remain interested in Java or even Pascal. They
bet on C++ and their own aging compiler.
Is Microsoft being fair to any dev tool makers when it migrates to a
64-bit platform? Microsoft has complete control over the .Net framework,
WinForms, and the GUI APIs for their operating system. And MS definitely
has their compilers ready long before a competing product can be ready.
But, if you make the OS, of course you need the compilers before anyone
else.
No, Apple doesn't bend over backwards to help tool vendors. But Apple
does provide a lot of support and documentation to developers -- at
least as much as Microsoft provides. If Adobe wanted to, I bet a port of
Photoshop could be done in under four months. For some reason, Adobe
seems to favor Windows right now. Plus, Adobe has the messy task of
absorbing a parallel product line.
Don't think MS couldn't port Office in a very short time. Right now, MS
wants to find a way to get Windows Office users to a subscription model.
That's where their money is, not Apple users.
Real Software is stuck being a very small company competing against both
MS and Apple. There is no way they could keep up with either easily. Do
you think Real will have an AMD64 or Intel64 compiler within six months
of the MS releases?
- Scott
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
