It doesn't involve credit cards as xcode 3 is still freely available. If Apple does not include the developer tools on the Lion DVD, and if they remove all free versions of xcode for download, then I don't doubt someone will package up the "build essentials" for OSX and make them available. To date there has been no reason to do this, but if there is a reason, there is nothing preventing it that I am aware of.

edit: though I agree a smaller "build essentials" tool chain would be nice, but that was the case before you had to pay for xcode and nobody has bothered to create one. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be possible, only that it's probably not worth the hassle of setting it up and maintaining it (though Apple doing it would be excellent).

Xcode 3 doesn't solve the issue of it being a real pain in the butt to install. gcc by itself is much, much smaller and much less of an issue for a casual user to install.

Anyone who hits the need for gcc is no longer a casual user by any average use of that term. A casual user rarely moves past opening a .dmg or .zip with an installer pkg.

A casual developer might be a different class of user ... but anyone who hits the point of writing code & installing libraries instead of applications has adequately stepped outside the role of user.

And even granting that, it is still not a firm enough basis on which to argue such an inflammatory statement as "OS X is not for developers"--when the casual developer is far better served by OS X's included toolchain than s/he is going to find in a default installation of Windows/Linux counterparts.

OS X is not "for" developers when it begins removing the tools that create the lowest barrier to entry for casual development I've seen in a default OS installation in the last 10 years (except maybe Gentoo Linux, one of the most "for developers" systems I've had the pleasure of using).

I define it as a casual user of my libraries. Designers are the best example: they're usually hooked into the development world and would be interested in a clever command line tool, but they normally don't have an entire build chain under their belt.

In my neck of the woods, a designer's tool chain rarely extends to anything outside Adobe tools. That's what developers are for ;)

I'm a designer, and a "user" of software, and I use several terminal commands on a regular basis. I don't consider myself anything approaching a "developer," but I code a little in Ruby, Javascript, etc. It's semantics, sure, but when you draw hard lines around what people are and what they "need," you potentially limit a lot of blurrier, less-stereotypical scenarios. And how is a designer (or a child, or a business-person, or a manager, or whoever) supposed to cross that mystical threshold into beginner developer if the tools are behind a financial or obfuscatory barrier?

I think that's the main argument. Getting started with command-line tools and developer-type stuff should be as easy as possible, so that people can try new things and break stereotypes and do more than they thought they could do.

(edited my comment before I saw your reply)

I agree that a smaller (and free) tool chain would be great, but so far as I know there is nothing preventing anyone from making one.

Related, I realize it is now the case, but when did casual users start needing gcc? Time was, in my pre-OSX days, compiling things yourself if you weren't a dev was seen as somewhat pointless, you just get thousands of users all building the same binary instead of building one binary to be downloaded by thousands of users...

Isn't it on the DVD that came with the computer? Double-click to install..

That totally outside the scope of this issue, though. If you feel that having to install Xcode to get a gcc install on a Mac, that's fine, but that's the way it's been for a while now. Apple charging for Xcode 4 didn't change that.

I have installed new versions of gcc on Linux systems. Installing XCode is much, much easier.

But, your point was about developers. When did casual users come into the discussion?

There's a scale of developers: from people who regularly do this sort of thing, to people who are more casual about it. That's the type of audience that I like to write for sometimes: they'll use my library (which may use compiled code), but they haven't been exposed to this area of software development before. Designers are the best stereotype for this. Having a massive Xcode install is what I'm saying is detrimental to these sorts of casual users (a lot of the time it wouldn't be appropriate to call them "progammers", really).

It's friction, but, really. It came with their computer. You click a bunch of buttons and it's installed. The size of the install is irrelevant.

But I still have difficulty believing these casual-developers-but-not-programmers exist in great numbers. Have people told you "I was going to try your thing, but it asked for this weird gcc thing"?

Absolutely. I run into that frequently with my own projects. It's such a bummer to have to tell someone to go through this whole process for such a small `gem install` command.

If you just need gcc: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.8

Also, how many Apple developers don't already have an iTunes account?

I'm baffled by the premise of this "casual" gem user who is worried about "barriers to entry" yet wants to use... gcc.

Go take a look at the source code for ruby-rmagick, ruby-pg, nokogiri, or mongrel.

https://github.com/rmagick/rmagick

https://github.com/ged/ruby-pg

https://github.com/tenderlove/nokogiri

What part of "XCode 3 is still free" do you not understand?

Honestly, every time I see one of these articles with even a hint at criticism towards Apple, I cringe slightly before I click the comments link...because I know what's coming next. Not that you care, but I'm also tired of Apple hi-jinks, T's & C's, and just general unfriendliness toward devs and I'll stick with Win7/Ubuntu from now on.

Right, because Windows comes with gcc?

Last I checked, Visual Studio was WAY more expensive than $5.

VS 2010 is free if you sign up for their webspark program http://microsoft.com/web/websitespark/ -- so is MS Windows Server 2008, SQL Server, etc. Look, I'm no MS proponent. I'm an independent developer and I use all platforms, all tools, all languages. If you fellas watch the news, this URL is kinda like the Fox News of Apple fan-boi-ism. Fair & Balanced...it is not...tiresome...bah, let the downvotes begin.

Check the fine print (http://www.microsoft.com/web/websitespark/support.aspx?tab=P...): It's only free for 3 developers per company. Arguably enough for personal use, but won't cover many organizations.

You can download application and device driver SDKs which come with command line C++ compilers at no charge. Pretty much the same compilers MS uses to build the OS itself and its own products.

There's also a no charge "express edition" of the IDE, but it was heavily crippled last time I checked.

Perl, Python, Ruby, rails…

I was more reacting to the common argument that "$5 is not expensive". My apologies if that's not what they were addressing in this comment.

That said, Xcode 3 doesn't satisfy the requirement of being easy or quick to install for a casual user.

What's this rubbish about Xcode 3 being hard to install? It's on your OS X CD. From there on, it's just a one-click install process. Even if you downloaded it, the process is the same. If a developer can't be bothered to do that, then they probably dont give a damn in the first place.

Casual users =/= developers

What isn't easy about installing from the disc given when you bought the mac? Don't have a your mac discs anymore? Download it or borrow someone elses. If you don't want the extra crud of iOS firmwares, disable it. To be honest it's quite "easy" to install for any user.

Quick on the other hand, how many 4.5gb installations are quick?

FWIW, it doesn't come with the new Air models.

I think the point wasn't that a 4.5gb installation should be quick. It was that it shouldn't require a 4.5gb installation if all you want is gcc. More like a 50MB installation.

What it comes down to is a question of principle. The argument that development tools should be free and readily available is a principle of software freedom.

I don't want to paint this as black & white, because things rarely are, but on the continuum of free (as in freedom) vs non-free, you'd have to live in a cave on the moon to still cling to the idea that Apple is anywhere near the free side of the scale.

You, as a developer, have to make a decision about how you will support your principles. Apple has certainly made theirs. They view their entire platform as theirs to do with as they wish. That is the anti-thesis of freedom. Do not expect this to change.