News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by tvon on Thursday March 10, 2011 @06:50PM (#2311323)
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).

Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by holman on Thursday March 10, 2011 @07:08PM (#2311398)
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.
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by bobwaycott on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:23AM (#2312246)
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).

Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by holman on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:27AM (#2312257)
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.
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by bobwaycott on Friday March 11, 2011 @01:29AM (#2312387)
In my neck of the woods, a designer's tool chain rarely extends to anything outside Adobe tools. That's what developers are for ;)
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by simolinic on Tuesday March 15, 2011 @12:19PM (#2328143)
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.

Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by tvon on Thursday March 10, 2011 @07:31PM (#2311486)
(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...

Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by dunham on Thursday March 10, 2011 @07:14PM (#2311431)
Isn't it on the DVD that came with the computer? Double-click to install..
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by ahlatimer on Friday March 11, 2011 @04:00AM (#2312739)
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.
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by scott_s on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:01AM (#2312199)
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?

Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by holman on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:13AM (#2312218)
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).
Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by scott_s on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:27AM (#2312258)
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"?

Re:OS X Isn't for Developers by holman on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:37AM (#2312280)
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.