Does this spell the end?
la...@skytag.com
telling Freescale where it can put its weenie G4 processors, is there
any chance at all we'll continue have a viable alternative to Xcode?
Come on, Ron, do your cheerleading thing.
Larry
Alexander Dymerets
> Now that Freescale so wisely sold off its Intel technology and Apple
> telling Freescale where it can put its weenie G4 processors, is there
> any chance at all we'll continue have a viable alternative to Xcode?
Robert
their Mac Desktop tools this week. Is this announcement from Apple
(that they will be moving to Intel chips in their machines) that
announcement? Or does Metrowerks have something else to say?
But what can they say? Even if CW 10 is the greatest Mac IDE in the
world, with 64 bit, distributed development and all the other features
we have been clamoring for over the last year, they can not target
intel processers any more can they? So in a year or two it will be
totally obsolete.
Now what company did they sell their intel tech too?? Any chance they
will provide an alternative to Xcode for the Mac development?
Robert
Ruslan Zasukhin
1118082100.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "la...@skytag.com"
<la...@skytag.com> wrote:
And Ron did promise for Metrowerks announces on Monday...
Very Interesting if Metrowerks was aware of this step from Apple ?!
It very looks like no :-(
--
Best regards,
Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc
Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com
[I feel the need: the need for speed]
la...@skytag.com
cheap. His primary responsibility seems to be to tell us what we want
to hear, and to "handle" CW users when they're upset until they calm
down.
I thought selling off the Intel technology was dumb enough *before*
this. Well, at least we might get some entertainment value out of
listening to Ron put his spin on it.
Larry
Arthur Langereis
Intel has some good quality compilers, tools, profilers, etc. and I
read that they have been made ready for OS X. So perhaps CodeWarrior
can wrap around those tools and huzzah? Who in this crowd wants to
register anythingbutxcode.com?
Or perhaps disgruntled MW employees will form a new spinoff company
that will bestow upon us the Grand New IDE for the coming decade. Yep.
Anyway.. Yay, Intel! Hisss, IBM!
Sillyness aside, I do think that even though their _own_ x86 tools are
gone, there are quite a few x86 compilers and tools in the marketplace
that perhaps MW could use? They could pull an Xcode and wrap CW around
gcc or the like, perhaps making improvements to it? Or the Intel
compiler, like I mentioned. I am primarily interested in the user
experience that CW has offered over the past couple of years. Sure,
their PPC compiler was better, but hey, that don't mean scrap anymore
now.
CW already is a highly modular application, plugging in some free /
other compilers, debuggers etc. could keep it alive and thriving for
quite some time still.
- Arthur Langereis
- xfinitegames.com
bols...@hotmail.com
>CW already is a highly modular application, plugging in some free /
>other compilers, debuggers etc. could keep it alive and thriving for
>quite some time still.
After this you would still prefer to use a development system that Apple now
reportedly says you shouldn't use?
<http://www.jepstone.net/index.cgi/2005/06/06#WWDC2005Keynote>
How many more times can your business handle being behind the curve
on Mac OS X development tools?
Scott Ribe
la...@skytag.com at la...@skytag.com wrote on 6/6/05 1:39 PM:
> I thought selling off the Intel technology was dumb enough *before*
> this. Well, at least we might get some entertainment value out of
> listening to Ron put his spin on it.
Somehow, I think Jobs may actually be aware of MW's faltering since being
acquired by Freescale. This is not in the press reports but he described Mac
apps as being divided into 4 overall groups:
1) Widgets, scripts, Java
2) XCode & Cocoa.
3) XCode & Carbon.
4) CodeWarrior & Carbon.
His chart showed "switch to XCode" as the first step for apps in group 4...
Oh well, time to give GCC 4 a spin and see if how it handles namespace
lookup...
Milton Aupperle
<bols...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You mean like switchign to XCode 2.1, when Schiller said that they will
use Intels C/C++ tools later this year? Seems to me the best thign to
do is just Dump OSX and swithc to Windows - probably less work and
certainyl better to access 98% of the MArket than 2%.
Milton
Mac devloper since 1986.
www.outcastsoft.com
bols...@hotmail.com
>You mean like switchign to XCode 2.1, when Schiller said that they will
>use Intels C/C++ tools later this year? Seems to me the best thign to
>do is just Dump OSX and swithc to Windows - probably less work and
>certainyl better to access 98% of the MArket than 2%.
No, I read it as saying that Intel's tools will be compilers that Xcode can
use in addition to the gcc toolset that comes with it, just list the IBM G5
tools were also available for purchase from IBM.
MW Ron
la...@skytag.com wrote:
>Ron is always saying something. Talk is cheap. Ron's talk is dirt
>cheap. His primary responsibility seems to be to tell us what we want
>to hear, and to "handle" CW users when they're upset until they calm
>down.
Unfortunately over the past year and a half that has been close to true.
Maybe now I can tell more.
>
>I thought selling off the Intel technology was dumb enough *before*
>this. Well, at least we might get some entertainment value out of
>listening to Ron put his spin on it.
Can't do that, no spin this time.
We are not doing Intel at this time and have no plans for doing it.
It looks like CW 10 will be something for people to have so they can
continue to maintain their current applications. It had some cool new
features which are probably not useful and one that is probably worth
buying it for. Text based project formats.
Ron
--
Metrowerks Community Forum is a free online resource for developers
to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and Metrowerks' staff
-- http://www.metrowerks.com/community --
Ron Liechty - MW...@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com
la...@skytag.com
It's been pretty obvious. Cheap talk, vague promises, and endlessly
talking about all the stuff MW needed to do and what was on the "list."
Apparently that list was written on toilet paper and used accordingly.
> t looks like CW 10 will be something for people to have so they
> can continue to maintain their current applications.
Is it going to be priced accordingly? Under the circumstances I'm
thinking maybe $100?
> It had some cool new features which are probably not useful
So I guess it's safe to assume they didn't do anything of real value in
this "complete rewrite" you promised us. Was there ever a real
intention to deliver a serious contenter or have you just been feeding
us BS for the past two years to stem the tide to Xcode? Tell the truth
or don't bother responding.
> and one that is probably worth buying it for.
> Text based project formats.
Nope, I don't need that to maintain my application.
So when is this wonder product planned for release?
Larry
Richard Buckle
> In article <1118086784.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> la...@skytag.com wrote:
>
> >Ron is always saying something. Talk is cheap. Ron's talk is dirt
> >cheap. His primary responsibility seems to be to tell us what we want
> >to hear, and to "handle" CW users when they're upset until they calm
> >down.
>
> Unfortunately over the past year and a half that has been close to true.
> Maybe now I can tell more.
> >
> >I thought selling off the Intel technology was dumb enough *before*
> >this. Well, at least we might get some entertainment value out of
> >listening to Ron put his spin on it.
>
> Can't do that, no spin this time.
>
> We are not doing Intel at this time and have no plans for doing it.
>
> It looks like CW 10 will be something for people to have so they can
> continue to maintain their current applications. It had some cool new
> features which are probably not useful and one that is probably worth
> buying it for. Text based project formats.
Ooof.
I wish you well, MWRon and all the CodeWarrior crew, you've always
struck me as good and sincere people, all. So long, Metrowerks, and
thanks for all the many fish. I'm so terribly sorry that it came to
this.
Richard.
la...@skytag.com
> you've always struck me as good and sincere people, all.
How can you say this about a guy who has been stringing us along for
the past year with vague promises and false hopes while he's had
another job in the company because he knew CW was a dead-end product?
Ron is anything but sincere. Just because MW paid him to deceive us
doesn't make it honorable.
Larry
Miro Jurisic
la...@skytag.com wrote:
> > Unfortunately over the past year and a half that has been close to true.
>
> It's been pretty obvious. Cheap talk, vague promises, and endlessly
> talking about all the stuff MW needed to do and what was on the "list."
> Apparently that list was written on toilet paper and used accordingly.
Hey, Larry, cut the crap. I am sure that Ron and the rest of MW employees are
pretty unhappy about the situation they ended up in. You really don't need to go
out of your way to pour salt on their wounds at this point.
--
If this message helped you, consider buying an item
from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>
Andy Bettis
la...@skytag.com wrote:
In my experience over many years Ron has been helpful, friendly and
unbelievably polite despite extreme provocation. It seems to me that
he's been as upfront and trustworthy as his position allowed, and to
expect more is both naive and unrealistic.
Many thanks Ron for all the help over the years. If we meet in a pub the
first drink's on me.
Rev. Andy
r...@haptek.com
and Ron. It's been clear for a few years now that CW was not being
supported, either by design, or incompetence. It's become harder
to use for the kind of work I've been doing, and the small variants
between MSL and berkeley, cocoa and carbon, etc, and the constant
and continuing changes in the Mac OS have been a headache. Xcode
is clunky and unesthetic, so I've returned to makefiles, basically the
same environment that I used 25 years ago on a Sun 2. Unix seems
the one constant in this fiasco, and it will remain the same in a
transition to Linux, running on whatever hardware.
It was entertaining to see a product advertised on this group
(before it magically disappeared) for turning CW projects
into makefiles.
Emacs and Makefiles, back to the future.
Rob Shaw
Sak Wathanasin
> It's been pretty obvious. Cheap talk, vague promises, and endlessly
> talking about all the stuff MW needed to do and what was on the "list."
> Apparently that list was written on toilet paper and used accordingly.
This sounds like shooting the messenger because you don't like the news. I
have to add my appreciation of Ron's contribution both in the newsgroup and
via private e-mail where he took the trouble to follow up on various
problems.
Apple has shafted 3rd-party developers in the past, but this must rank as
one of the worse, if not the worst.
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk
la...@skytag.com
shooting the messager because for more than a year the messenger has
been misleading us with vague promises about how MW had made a new
commitment to CW, that they were rewriting the IDE from scratch, that
this and that problem was "on the list" of things they needed to
address, blah blah blah. Ron's had another job at MW for almost a year,
so he obviously saw this coming since even before that. In fact, if
Apple hadn't come forth with the Intel revelation Ron would probably
still be keeping us in the dark, and for what? What has MW had to gain
from not telling us the truth about CW? Hardly anyone was buying it
anymore anyway, and no one recently because it hasn't even been
available for sale. If it makes me weird to believe in right and wrong,
then fine, I'm weird, and we need more people in the world who are that
kind of weird. And what MW and Ron have done by misrepresenting the
future of CW is wrong IMO.
The fact that he was paid to deceive us doesn't make it admirable. As
for his patience, big deal. He was *paid* to "handle" us, to keep us
loyal to a product he knew was dying, and in my experience it was
insulting. After I upgraded to CW 8 I had some problems with it. I had
several exchanges with Ron about them and it was extremely frustrating.
Even in spite of the fact that I had crash logs and screen shots, he'd
say stuff like "I know you think you have a problem." It was clear he
was primarily focused on maintaining the position that CW did not have
a problem, when it clearly did. I'm not going to heap praise on someone
just because he can be dishonest with you with a gentle voice and a
smile on his face.
Larry
Scott Ribe
> just because he can be dishonest with you with a gentle voice and a
> smile on his face.
But I haven't seen anything here that would establish to my satisfaction
that Ron was not fighting for the product the whole time.
MW Ron
I wrote...
>> It had some cool new features which are probably not useful
That should have been " which are probably useful "
>
>So I guess it's safe to assume they didn't do anything of real value in
>this "complete rewrite" you promised us. Was there ever a real
>intention to deliver a serious contenter or have you just been feeding
>us BS for the past two years to stem the tide to Xcode? Tell the truth
>or don't bother responding.
>
>> and one that is probably worth buying it for.
>> Text based project formats.
And one alone that is probably worth buying it for.
>Nope, I don't need that to maintain my application.
>
>So when is this wonder product planned for release?
I have to wait for an official statement.
Adriaan van Os
following development scenario, if available:
* X-Code compatible Mach-O PPC compiler and linker plug-ins (Pascal, C,
C++ and Obj-C)
* X-Code compatible Mac Intel cross-compiler and cross-linker plug-ins
(Pascal, C, C++ and Obj-C)
This would work with CWPro 7, 8 and 9. The compilers could be used in
the same project as current MW compilers. For debugging, you would have
to use X-Code (writing a separate debugger is a lot of work).
Same question for
* Wintel compatible cross-compiler and cross-linker plugins (Pascal, C,
C++ and Obj-C).
I don't know if the CW IDE will run in PPC emulation on an Intel Mac.
Any experiences ?
Regards,
Adriaan van Os
jonh...@mac.com
I think I would be interested. one of the nice things about
CodeWarrior is the IDE and working environment. If you could provide
the compiler plug-ins to allow us to keep that, I would be very
interested.
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
Paul
pleasant to work with as CW; XCode, like Visual Studio, doesn't even rise to
"acceptable."
I've looked into doing this myself, decided I don't have the time or
inclination (I've done a wrapped compiler plugin for CW before, didn't enjoy
it.)
Paul
Wade Williams
> But what can they say? Even if CW 10 is the greatest Mac IDE in the
> world, with 64 bit, distributed development and all the other features
> we have been clamoring for over the last year, they can not target
> intel processers any more can they? So in a year or two it will be
> totally obsolete.
Just my opinion:
There will be no CodeWarrior 10. With 90 days, Freescale will announce
the discontinuation of CodeWarrior on the Macintosh platform, probably
with a press release blaming small marketshare and blaming Apple for
killing their product. (Some of which is true, though I'm sure there's
plenty of fault on both sides)
The discontinuation of CW is the only thing that can possibly happen.
Nothing else would make a shred of business sense for Freescale.
Wade
Wade Williams
> In my experience over many years Ron has been helpful, friendly and
> unbelievably polite despite extreme provocation. It seems to me that
> he's been as upfront and trustworthy as his position allowed, and to
> expect more is both naive and unrealistic.
> Many thanks Ron for all the help over the years. If we meet in a pub
> the first drink's on me.
Agreed. Ron has certainly hidden things at times, but sometimes you do
as you're told unless you want to be fired.
But, Ron has been very helpful and polite through the years. I have no
complaints with Ron at all.
If we ever meet Ron, I'll buy you several beers. :)
Wade
Wade Williams
> Apple has shafted 3rd-party developers in the past, but this must rank
> as one of the worse, if not the worst.
There's blame on both sides, I'm sure. Maybe one day we'll know the
full story, but I'm willing to bet that the situation could have turned
out differently if MW had done somethings differently on their end too.
Wade
jonh...@mac.com
>> Nothing else would make a shred of business sense for Freescale.
Actually, something less noble than that can happen: they can pull a
Symantec pocket-veto. That is to say, they will say all the right
words "We remain committed to the Macintosh, plan to suport, blah blah
blah", continue to take your money, but invest nothing in its future.
After a while of course, everyone will figure out that their words had
no meaning, and then they'll cancel the product.
Metrowerks, to their credit, has never done that before. In the past,
when they were ready to desupport something (eg 68K and Pascal
compilations, or Classic hosting), they warned everyone in advance by
at least a version. "Maintenance mode purgatory" is a living death,
allowing the company to continue to receive income for something that
they are essentially abandoning; Symantec did this by
lying...Metrowerks has always been honest. (Of course, it's not really
Metrowerks anymore, it's Freescale.)
MWRon has already given the official Metrowerks statement on this:
"Metrowerks remains committed to its Mac customers. We continue to
support our Mac products and we intend to continue to sell our current
line of tools for Mac environments."
The phrase "continue to sell our current line of tools for Mac
environments" is intentionally leading you to think that Metrowerks is
in for the long haul: future versions, Intel compatibility, etc. And I
certainly hope it does mean that. But unfortunately, it could just
mean "we will continue to sell CW 9 for as long as you'll give us
money, but we have no intention of doing any major work with it ever
again."
Hopefully, Metrowerks will show us that it is still the good company we
always knew it as, and not just another Symantec 10 years later.
Jonathan Hoyle
Eastman Kodak
Rail Jon Rogut
compiler for at least 5 years.. that's standard copy in a sale of a
technology like they just went through.
BTW Jon, thanks for the advice you gave me a few weeks ago to wait for WDDC
before getting back on the MW wagon.
Rail
--
Recording Engineer/Software Developer
Rail Jon Rogut Software
http://www.railjonrogut.com
mailto:ra...@railjonrogut.com
<jonh...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1118248037....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Scott Moore
> "Metrowerks remains committed to its Mac customers. We continue to
> support our Mac products and we intend to continue to sell our current
> line of tools for Mac environments."
>
> The phrase "continue to sell our current line of tools for Mac
> environments" is intentionally leading you to think that Metrowerks is
> in for the long haul: future versions, Intel compatibility, etc. And I
> certainly hope it does mean that. But unfortunately, it could just
> mean "we will continue to sell CW 9 for as long as you'll give us
> money, but we have no intention of doing any major work with it ever
> again."
Metrowerks has already demonstrated well what they will do with the
other products they cancelled. Ie., we will support it, no, we are not
going to go forward with new versions, but if you are stupid enough to
shell out money for a dead end product, then we will be happy to take
it.
ward mcfarland
> I would be very surprised if MW were legally allowed to write any x86
> compiler for at least 5 years.. that's standard copy in a sale of a
> technology like they just went through.
but could they not support the version of GCC APple uses for its x86
Xcode?
Eric Albert
bols...@hotmail.com wrote:
Greg's exactly right here. Xcode will continue to use gcc by default,
but you'll hopefully be able to use the Intel compiler if you'd like to
use it.
-Eric
--
Eric Albert ejal...@cs.stanford.edu
http://outofcheese.org/
Eric Albert
Adriaan van Os <codew...@microbizz.nl> wrote:
> I don't know if the CW IDE will run in PPC emulation on an Intel Mac.
> Any experiences ?
In my experience, CodeWarrior 8.3 works under Rosetta. I don't think
I've ever gotten around to trying CodeWarrior 9.
toby
la...@skytag.com wrote:
> Now that Freescale so wisely sold off its Intel technology and Apple
> telling Freescale where it can put its weenie G4 processors, is there
> any chance at all we'll continue have a viable alternative to Xcode?
Eclipse has always been a very nice alternative and it is still
actively developed. By adding MinGW, you can do Win32 cross-builds. I
prefer Eclipse's interface to CodeWarrior's.
>
> Come on, Ron, do your cheerleading thing.
>
> Larry
toby
Sak Wathanasin wrote:
> In article <1118108236.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> la...@skytag.com wrote:
>
> > It's been pretty obvious. Cheap talk, vague promises, and endlessly
> > talking about all the stuff MW needed to do and what was on the "list."
> > Apparently that list was written on toilet paper and used accordingly.
>
> This sounds like shooting the messenger because you don't like the news. I
> have to add my appreciation of Ron's contribution both in the newsgroup and
> via private e-mail where he took the trouble to follow up on various
> problems.
>
> Apple has shafted 3rd-party developers in the past, but this must rank as
> one of the worse, if not the worst.
If you're talking about switching CPU architectures, that obviously has
nothing to do with Metrowerks.
And I can't figure out where in the equation developers get "shafted".
This is the easiest platform shift in the history of Mac: recompile.
(And if necessary, fix any of the program's endian bugs.) That's even
easier than moving from System 6 to 7.
Did nobody notice that Carbon, Cocoa, and the rest of OS X's APIs have
always been architecture independent (just like NEXTSTEP)? All the
porting effort has already been invested in Carbonising. Developers
don't have to expend anything like that kind of effort to run natively
on future Macs. I'm baffled by the overreactions I'm seeing.
--T
Andy Dent
"toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> Eclipse ... By adding MinGW, you can do Win32 cross-builds.
can you debug cross-platform?
That was always the big appeal for me, running GUI apps on Windows and
CW IDE on dual screens on my Mac.
BTW one of the developer backlash things is people assuming they will
have to double their Mac QA load. I certainly wouldn't consider it safe
to release software without comprehensive testing on the new
architecture.
I also doubt that high-performance porting will be as straightforward,
unless the alignment dependencies of the new chip are identical to PPC.
--
Andy Dent BSc MACS
OOFILE - Cross-Platform Database, Reports, Graphs, GUI in C++
PP2MFC - PowerPlant->MFC portability
http://www.oofile.com.au/
toby
Andy Dent wrote:
> In article <1118449293.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "toby" <to...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Eclipse ... By adding MinGW, you can do Win32 cross-builds.
>
> can you debug cross-platform?
Never tried, but I guess it could be possible. Various people have
ported gdb to MinGW. My stuff runs on both platforms and I rarely use
symbolic debuggers, so I don't notice the lack.
>
> That was always the big appeal for me, running GUI apps on Windows and
> CW IDE on dual screens on my Mac.
>
> BTW one of the developer backlash things is people assuming they will
> have to double their Mac QA load. I certainly wouldn't consider it safe
> to release software without comprehensive testing on the new
> architecture.
Good point, but this applied even more so to 68K/PPC transition, or
even just different O/S environments. I don't recall quite the same
amplitude of strident indignation back then.
>
> I also doubt that high-performance porting will be as straightforward,
> unless