Just wanted to point this blog article out. https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355

The author tested Xcode and ran "four production Objective-C projects, all cleaned and rebuilt."

Same guy also says you shouldn't use Chrome or Slack because they use lots of RAM (I guess it sucks to be the developer that has to use both of these). Apple's new "Pro" machines have similar specs to their three year old pro machines. They are a lot thinner, but that's not a Pro feature.

> A couple apps you won’t see on this list are Chrome and Slack. Both of these applications have widespread reports of being memory pigs, and in my opinion you should boycott them until the developers learn how to write them to play nicer with memory.

I got my 2013 Macbook Pro with 16GB of RAM and I'm happy I did, it has aged well. Will a 2016 MBP age similarly well? I guess we'll find out.

I've used Xcode on my Asus EeePC with 2 GB RAM. It uses most of the free memory, but it doesn't crash or slow down.

This was probably 10.6 before they dropped Atom support in the XNU kernel or are you using a replacement kernel?

Yes, it's running 10.6.8.

I would look at how much memory it consumes. It takes about 2-3gb on my large 300kloc project.

I have macbook air 13" with 4 gb RAM. I use it for app development using XCode.

I've heard that the SSD drive makes it the XCode experience more tolerable when it has to hit the swap disk. Personally on my iMac without an SSD and 4GB it was unbearably slow, but it improved a lot when I upgraded to 20GB of RAM and no longer had to hit the swap disk.

Me too.

With projects which are purely code, Xcode works fine. Projects with large Storyboard files make the dev experience painful.