diff between xcode and project builder
J
xCode that came with 10.3?
It seems that xcode and PB are both IDEs for developing mac apps. And I know
that xcode can do distributed builds (which I don't need).
So which should I use for starting to learn to develope with Obj-C and Cocoa?
J
Sean McBride
<0001HW.BC2CA992...@news-server.tampabay.rr.com>,
J <webs...@fluidic.com> wrote:
It's the same product with a new name, new features, and new bugs. PB
only works on 10.2, xcode only works on 10.3. So you can only use one
of them, depending which OS you are running. You can also use other
tools like CodeWarrior.
BTW, comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist.
Gregory Weston
Sean McBride <cwa...@cam.org> wrote:
> BTW, comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist.
According to whom? It exists and has recent posts on my server.
Sean McBride
Gregory Weston <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> > BTW, comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist.
>
> According to whom? It exists and has recent posts on my server.
OK, 'does not exist' is not the right phrasing I guess, but you know
what I mean.
Gregory Weston
Sean McBride <cwa...@cam.org> wrote:
Well, no. Actually I don't. The OP included a group which is live and on
the surface appears to be appropriate for his question. I'm really not
sure what "comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist" means in that
context. Not that it's especially meaningful or on-topic, but I'm
starting to get curious what you thought you were saying.
James Spencer
Gregory Weston <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> In article <cwatson-6DBAC9...@aeinews.aei.ca>,
> Sean McBride <cwa...@cam.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <gwestonREMOVE-E68...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > BTW, comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist.
> > >
> > > According to whom? It exists and has recent posts on my server.
> >
> > OK, 'does not exist' is not the right phrasing I guess, but you know
> > what I mean.
>
> Well, no. Actually I don't. The OP included a group which is live and on
> the surface appears to be appropriate for his question. I'm really not
> sure what "comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist" means in that
> context. Not that it's especially meaningful or on-topic, but I'm
> starting to get curious what you thought you were saying.
I can't speak for him but I would argue that it was NOT appropriate for
his question because of the unlikelyhood that it will get read. I
can't argue with you claim that comp.sys.mac.programmer still exists;
if your server carries it and you get messages posted on it, then so be
it. But I will tell you that it isn't carried on my server and the
only reason I could read your message is because you opted to cross
post it to comp.sys.mac.programmer.tools
--
James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN
"Badges?? We don't need no stinkin badges!"
Gregory Weston
James Spencer <jspencer...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > > BTW, comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist.
> > > >
> > > > According to whom? It exists and has recent posts on my server.
> > >
> > > OK, 'does not exist' is not the right phrasing I guess, but you know
> > > what I mean.
> >
> > Well, no. Actually I don't. The OP included a group which is live and on
> > the surface appears to be appropriate for his question. I'm really not
> > sure what "comp.sys.mac.programmer does not exist" means in that
> > context. Not that it's especially meaningful or on-topic, but I'm
> > starting to get curious what you thought you were saying.
>
> I can't speak for him but I would argue that it was NOT appropriate for
> his question because of the unlikelyhood that it will get read. I
> can't argue with you claim that comp.sys.mac.programmer still exists;
> if your server carries it and you get messages posted on it, then so be
> it. But I will tell you that it isn't carried on my server and the
> only reason I could read your message is because you opted to cross
> post it to comp.sys.mac.programmer.tools
Yes, but last time I checked "I can't see it" does not mean "it doesn't
exist." It doesn't even mean "most people can't see it." I'd wager there
are a large number of groups that aren't universally carried, so by your
logic none of them would be appropriate to use ever, yeah?
Sean McBride
Gregory Weston <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> Yes, but last time I checked "I can't see it" does not mean "it doesn't
> exist." It doesn't even mean "most people can't see it." I'd wager there
> are a large number of groups that aren't universally carried, so by your
> logic none of them would be appropriate to use ever, yeah?
I can't believe all the comments my little remark has generated! :)
My recollection is that comp.sys.mac.programmer used to be the only
group before the entire comp.sys.mac.programmer.* hierarchy was created.
After the creation of the hierarchy comp.sys.mac.programmer was
superceeded/obsoleted/killed.
Here are a few pieces of evidence:
<http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=comp.sys.mac.programmer+hierarchy+group
s:news.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=nan.892462502.8731%40isc.org&rn
um=6>
<http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=comp.sys.mac.programmer+hierarchy+group
s:news.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=32rkvs%24lnu%40rodan.UU.NET&rnu
m=1>
IAC, the whole reason I mentionned this to the OP, as J Spencer implied,
is that most servers (including Google Groups) do not carry
comp.sys.mac.programmer and sa the OP's posts will be read by many more
people if he posts in the comp.sys.mac.programmer.* hierarchy.
Christopher Corbell
This is kind of a stupid thread, but just to keep the fire burning:
Anyone with a web browser can access comp.sys.mac.programmer through
Google groups, at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.sys.mac.programmer
However no link is offered to post to this group via Google (you -can- post
to other groups like comp.sys.mac.programmer.tools); also FWIW there's a
note that c.s.m.p is no longer archived.
- Chris