What hardware do you like to program with? [Archive]

ChrisA

Apr 29, 2009, 12:36 PM

What is the most used Mac to write programs with? I'm going to be using my MBP for a long time to write programs, and I was curious if anyone or how many people are using Mac Pro, or an iMac to program? I'm not going to be stepping up to a Mac Pro until sometime later when I have all the money saved up for the exact one I want.

I've been writing software now for a few decades. It used to be that when you stared up a compiler you'd go get some coffee or leave for lunch or wait overnight. But now ALL computers are fast enough that speed durring complie is a non-issue. You do need a computer that can run our program, the one you are writing.

Once you have the above, I think the screen maters the most. Programmers tend you use a lot of windows and terminal sessions all at once. I'd go nuts on a 15 inch screen. 20" is about the smallest I'd want and 24 is bettr but I do like the 30" LCD screens we have in our lab.

lee1210

Apr 29, 2009, 12:52 PM

Catfish_Man

Apr 29, 2009, 01:12 PM

I write most of my code on a 2GHz Core 2 Duo Macbook.

savar

Apr 29, 2009, 01:21 PM

I write most of my code on a 2GHz Core 2 Duo Macbook.

Me too!! (Except mines a Core Duo -- the original)

The speed's actually not bad. I have a 24" monitor at home and 2x19" at work.

Screen space and RAM, that's really what it comes down to.

kainjow

Apr 29, 2009, 01:50 PM

I used a 13" MacBook (without external display) for 2 years and am now on a 15" MBP without an external display. I've tried using a 24" ACD once but I dislike how OS X handles two monitors. My windows shift around too much going from the laptop to the external monitor. I had a MP for a while and loved the 4 CPUs which really help in Xcode, but for me a laptop is the best. Not being constrained to a desk to work is awesome.

Anyone use SSD? I'm thinking about getting one but am hesitant on the write speeds for compiling.

Spaces and Expose make it fairly easy to work on a smaller screen. I can find what I want quick enough.

iSee

Apr 29, 2009, 07:21 PM

#1 in my view is monitor size/resolution. I would recommend 1 or 2 external LCDs. At work I program on 2 19" displays. You might be able to get by on the internal display (especially if it's 17", you didn't say) and 1 external, but if you can afford 2 externals, I'm sure you'd appreciate it.

-Lee

EDIT: just noticed your sig says your machine is 15". External display(s) is/are a must, IMO, if you're programming more than a couple of hours a day.

For a different perspective, I don't find a need for external displays. In fact, I prefer one decent-sized one (20" - 24"), though I find working on my 15" mbp fine for most things.

I'm not sure what is at the root of our different preferences.
I do like to focus on one thing at a time and I prefer to switch between things with keyboard shortcuts as much as possible. Perhaps you prefer to "glance" to switch focus to something else, so you need room for one window for each thing you are working on.

So, OP, perhaps how much screen realestate you need depends on your UI preferences.

lee1210

Apr 29, 2009, 08:03 PM

My workflow generally involves 2-4 source files in as many shells, another "free" prompt for quickly looking things up, maybe a document (spec, problem description, etc.), a text editor at times for quick note-taking, and sometimes other things. In a perfect world all I would do is code, but I also need to be in communication with colleagues, aware of my schedule, etc. so I need a PIM, and generally an im client. I use my phone for music, so no media player needed. Oh, also some browser windows for ticket tracking, googling, etc., but they're normally minimized.

Everyone has a different style, that's mine. I need to be able to see everything at once.

-Lee

Catfish_Man

Apr 29, 2009, 09:56 PM

Me too!! (Except mines a Core Duo -- the original)

The speed's actually not bad. I have a 24" monitor at home and 2x19" at work.

Screen space and RAM, that's really what it comes down to.

I actually use the internal display mostly. Used a 24" external at work though... probably will again once I have a job again ;)

Animalk

Apr 29, 2009, 10:02 PM

I have stopped looking for bigger monitors.

I find the ability to assign spaces/desktops to each application extremely powerful. That is to lock an application to space/desktop and switching to the application will automatically switch to it and its assigned space/desktop.

Now if I could find a way to lock different windows inside an application, like xcode (or any application that uses several windows at the same time) for example, to a space/desktop then I'd be in heaven.

I would also say that screen size important. A keyboard with a good tactile feel. But most importantly, I need a desk and a chair that can allow me to sit for several hours at a time comfortably while programming in a location with healthy lighting.

liptonlover

Apr 30, 2009, 11:20 AM

I use a 20" desktop Mac, 4gb ram. Speed isn't an issue, I've coded on older mac laptops too and it's still fine. The big things for me are screen real estate and keyboard size. 20" isn't quite enough for me, but it's the best I have. I've tried using spaces but I wasn't able to do it. I just can't do it efficiently.
Nate

Daveoc64

May 2, 2009, 07:10 PM

I use the MacBook in my sig to program.

I find multiple monitors slow me down quite a bit.

I must admit that I avoid programming in Mac OS X though.

MarkSTi04

May 2, 2009, 08:50 PM

I'm actually wanting to get a 24" display. The 15" MBP display is alright for now but the addition of a larger screen would be great.

All of the different configurations is interesting. I know if I do get an iMac or Mac Pro, that at least a 24" display will be with it. A 30" display would be nice but the price of a nice one? The Apple displays are pricey.

mward333

May 2, 2009, 10:54 PM

aliher

May 3, 2009, 03:39 PM

I'm using a PowerBook G4 12". Screen space is a bit small after usual multimonitor setup at work, but expose and hotkeys usually solve the problem. I must note mac programming is a hobby for me. And with a light laptop you can use it on train while commuting.

NRose8989

May 4, 2009, 03:46 AM

I think that the keyboard is especially important for me. I use a Matias Tactile Pro 2.0. It is not perfect (for instance, the USB port only works if two USB connections are made to the Mac), and I have broken the legs on it several times, but Matias sends me some new ones free. This keyboard was expensive..... but despite all of these things, I think it is priceless. I really enjoy it.

Here's a link:

http://www.matias.ca/tactilepro2/

(I use the white one, which is not available right now, but version 3.0 should be released next year.)

I program on the Mac Pro described in my signature.

I must admin that I'm a young programmer, with that being said I've only used notebooks, and now the chicklet keyboards that Apple has.

I sometimes have to use one of those dell Multimedia keyboards (at my school) and I find that the key stroke is way to long for me to type fast at all.

I'm sure it's just because I'm so used to using a keyboard which requires a lot less force to to type.

What do you like about this keyboard? is it because of the special characters or is it the feel?

BTW I use a 24" iMac at home with a 22" Dell ultrasharp in portrait mode and a 15" MBP whenever I'm not home.

chrono1081

May 4, 2009, 04:32 AM

Right now I have a 24 inch monitor at work w/ a windows machine I use if I ever get any downtime.

Back in my living area I have a macbook pro hooked to a 24 inch monitor I use or when I travel I'll *gasp!* program on my 10 inch eeePC screen :D

Virtuo

May 7, 2009, 10:07 PM

I'll play around on anything that can run a terminal, python, and vi; I don't ask for much :). I prefer my 15" MBP, (C2D 2.33MHz 2GB RAM), but when multi-tasking with programs such as terminal, CSSEdit, Espresso, Photoshop, Safari, etc..., management of precious screen real-estate becomes somewhat problematic. However, it rarely happens that I'm actually using these all at once.

Peter Maurer

May 8, 2009, 11:08 AM

Here's another vote for the plain old 13.3" MacBook. Currently working on a year-old white 2.2 GHz model. Will upgrade to a 2.4 GHz unibody MacBook within the next few weeks.

And I don't even use an external screen, because I don't like changing my workflow when I'm on the road vs. working at home. Besides, Xcode (which I'm using pretty much exclusively) works remarkably well on a small screen.

Sijmen

May 8, 2009, 01:26 PM

I like the screen real estate of my 24" screen. It happens to be an iMac but a 24" on a MacBook or Mac Mini would also do for most stuff.

I've put Xcode in the MDI mode, so at the left I've got my project window and then I've got a code window or two open. When concentrating I don't want overlapping windows, and enough whitespace. Only then it feels right.

edit:

Besides, Xcode (which I'm using pretty much exclusively) works remarkably well on a small screen.

Also very true! It's very usable on my 12" PB as well. The Xcode interface is pretty much why I prefer it over most other IDEs, even if they may have better code completion or refactoring tools.

blkdogb

Jul 7, 2009, 09:49 PM

Sorry to bring this old thread back up.
For those who are using larger monitors to do programming work, do you have any issues with the fonts being blurry? I hooked up my 13" MackBook to the 19" LCD at work. And I found the fonts to be blurry. I tried this setup for a day and it already gave me headaches. May be it's just the external monitor? It's 3 year old 19" ViewSonic, btw.
I'm thinking of investing a 24" external for development work, but am hesitant to do so if the fonts on the large screen's gonna be blurry and cause me headaches.

NRose8989

Jul 8, 2009, 01:21 AM

blkdogb

Jul 8, 2009, 11:59 PM

Yes, I did. But that didn't help.
I noticed the fonts on 13" MB are also a little blurry, but when "blown up" to a larger screen (same 1280 horizontal resolution), the blurriness becomes much more obvious.

thingsis

Jul 9, 2009, 06:53 AM

I usually use my white MB for XCODE. Speed doesn't really matter much these days. I also think screen size doesn't really matter much if using XCODE. But sometimes I switch to my Mac Mini with a 22'' Samsung display - and that is when I am working with IB for longer. You do need a larger screen to build interfaces in my opinion.
Thingsis

Cromulent

Jul 9, 2009, 07:18 AM

Generally I use my Mac Pro with a 24" monitor. Although I must say that the power of the Mac Pro is completely wasted on programming really.

Xcode runs fast enough to do just about anything.

Flynnstone

Jul 9, 2009, 08:44 AM

Was a Windows 2000 PC with 2 19" screens in portrait mode.
Now a 24" iMac with 1 19" screen in portrait mode.
Programming for embedded systems. I tend to like a big messy desk. Screen desktop not much different :o

mslide

Jul 9, 2009, 08:52 AM

Although I must say that the power of the Mac Pro is completely wasted on programming really.

Xcode runs fast enough to do just about anything.

I wish I had a Mac Pro for programming. Building large software suites can take a long time and I wish I had 8 cores to do it with at once. Honestly, I can't wait until Macbook (pros) start coming with quad cores for this very reason. At the company I work for, so much time is wasted while programmers wait for their software to build.

I myself usually just use a Macbook (I do everything in terminal. embedded and gui stuff) with an external monitor attached, or my iMac at home.

Avizzv92

Jul 9, 2009, 10:13 PM

I do all mine on a Macbook, Intel Core 2 Duo, 4gb RAM, 13"... The screen size never bothered me, I suppose I acclimated myself to a small screen. That and I don't have the money or room for a external screen, I make do with what I got :)

And also, the programing I do at the present time isn't for a job but as a spare time hobby. So I don't need a larger screen or a more powerful computer.

mward333

Jul 10, 2009, 03:14 AM

What do you like about this keyboard? is it because of the special characters or is it the feel?

Sorry for my delay in responding to you (about the Matias Tactile Pro 2.0), NRose8989. I don't need the "special characters" on the keyboard. I bought the keyboard only for its tactile feel. The keys have a very solid (and loud!!) click when you are typing. I can very accurately type over 100 words per minute (only know this because someone recently wanted me to try a speed typing test), and this keyboard allows me to really get going fast. It just has a great feel to it.

A couple negatives, however: I've broken one of the two legs on it several times (had to request a bag of replacements from the manufacturer). The key mappings are a little more strange than the ones I've seen on other keyboards. The design of all keyboards requires, by the way, that not all of the key combinations will be unique, so that (for instance) typing two keys in tandem will do something unexpected. I have found some two-key combinations on the Tactile Pro 2.0 that do things that are extra-unexpected (i.e., really weird!). The construction of the keyboard also leaves something to be desired. The plastic seems to bend in such a way that, for instance, I can occasionally get the space bar rubbing against the plastic in an undesirable way. Also, to use the USB port, you must plug two USB connections into your computer, so you don't "gain" a port with the keyboard at all (very strange!).

Wow, this was a longer post than I intended. Sorry!

Anyway, it's a really great keyboard (albeit expensive), and I'm hoping that the Tactile Pro 3.0 is a further improvement on an already great product when it is released by Matias. The excellent feeling I get when typing on this keyboard outweigh the negatives, for me. It reminds me of typing on those really heavy IBM keyboards in the 1980's. Those were excellent keyboards.... Rock solid.

mward333

Jul 10, 2009, 03:20 AM

Generally I use my Mac Pro with a 24" monitor. Although I must say that the power of the Mac Pro is completely wasted on programming really.

The power of the Mac Pro is definitely like using a sledgehammer to put a small nail in the wall. The tasks of programming themselves could be done easily on almost any machine.

For me, the advantage of the Mac Pro is the 8 cores, so that I can run the programs I write (usually running 8 separate instantiations, one per core, for a few weeks at a time) before batching them out to large grids.

(The screen real estate is also crucial for me, when visualizing a lot of data.... but I think my use of the Mac Pro for crunching numbers is a little unorthodox, compared to many people here, who are often using the Mac Pro for multimedia.)

kainjow

Mar 10, 2011, 02:09 AM

Just upgraded to the quad MBP with 8GB RAM. This thing screams in Xcode. I timed doing a compile of my biggest project from a clean and it was roughly 4x faster (very unscientific test). Seeing it compile 8 files at once vs 2 is awesome :D

Pretty amazing performance improvement from a 2.5 year old computer.

jiminaus

Mar 10, 2011, 02:22 AM

I do all mine on a Macbook, Intel Core 2 Duo, 4gb RAM, 13"... The screen size never bothered me, I suppose I acclimated myself to a small screen.

I do my coding on my 24" iMac with a 27" second screen. I would seriously struggle to code on a 13" screen. I like to spread myself out with a minimum of window overlapping. Especially I like to have the developer docs and project specs side-by-side with my IDE.

My next upgrade will most probably will be an MBP. But I'll see what's on offer with the next iMac refresh first.

JustSomeDude

Mar 10, 2011, 03:18 AM

The power of the Mac Pro is definitely like using a sledgehammer to put a small nail in the wall. The tasks of programming themselves could be done easily on almost any machine.
)

This is not true for large enough programs. I work on C++ code that takes over an hour for a full build on a i5 system. More cores, with appropriate memory, would be nice.

Edit: just noticed I replied to a really old post. Wow. Anyway, still true.

firewood

Mar 10, 2011, 01:49 PM

I've done a lot of Mac programming on a Mac SE/30 and a Duo 210 (both 68030 CPUs with a 7" display), a PowerMac 7100 (overclocked to a blazing 80 MHz), a G3 266, an MBP 13, and most recently an MBA 11.

Having an optional large display monitor available helps.

chrono1081

Mar 10, 2011, 05:22 PM

I use the Mac Pro in my sig and dual 27 inch monitors.

If I'm just writing scripts for Unity or doing some small project I may just use my Macbook Air.

pilotError

Mar 10, 2011, 05:45 PM

Gen 1 Macbook Air

I have yet to try xcode 4 on it though!

Cromulent

Mar 10, 2011, 08:08 PM

This is not true for large enough programs. I work on C++ code that takes over an hour for a full build on a i5 system. More cores, with appropriate memory, would be nice.

Edit: just noticed I replied to a really old post. Wow. Anyway, still true.

C++ is notoriously bad no matter what you do. Most large C projects compile in a pretty decent time frame even on old hardware; especially when using clang.

I crave more screen real estate and more RAM more than I do CPU power.

JustSomeDude

Mar 10, 2011, 08:30 PM

C++ is notoriously bad no matter what you do. Most large C projects compile in a pretty decent time frame even on old hardware; especially when using clang.

I crave more screen real estate and more RAM more than I do CPU power.

More ram and screen is always good. I guess at some point good monitors will become large enough (and affordable). I don't know if I'll ever say I have enough ram.

kainjow

Mar 10, 2011, 08:31 PM

I've done a lot of Mac programming on a Mac SE/30 and a Duo 210 (both 68030 CPUs with a 7" display), a PowerMac 7100 (overclocked to a blazing 80 MHz), a G3 266

CodeWarrior? Think C/Pascal?

JimBobBennett

Mar 11, 2011, 01:52 AM

This is not true for large enough programs. I work on C++ code that takes over an hour for a full build on a i5 system. More cores, with appropriate memory, would be nice.

Edit: just noticed I replied to a really old post. Wow. Anyway, still true.

Over an hour? Have you ever heard of the Cheshire Cat idiom? It was used at a place I used to work at to reduce compile times down from over an hour to 10 minutes.

Mac Player

Mar 11, 2011, 08:42 AM

The fastest hardware possible.

C++ is notoriously bad no matter what you do.
Unless you know what your doing.

KnightWRX

Mar 11, 2011, 09:27 AM

I wish I had a Mac Pro for programming. Building large software suites can take a long time and I wish I had 8 cores to do it with at once. Honestly, I can't wait until Macbook (pros) start coming with quad cores for this very reason. At the company I work for, so much time is wasted while programmers wait for their software to build.

Why are you rebuilding every object file all the time ? You only need to rebuild the parts you modified and re-link.

Stop hitting the "Clean All Targets" option and you won't need 8 cores on programmer workstations. :p

ehoui

Mar 11, 2011, 10:00 AM

I'm now a hobbyist (sad), so I use a MacBook Pro to do my homegrown projects. If I was developing professionally I would have a laptop + desktop with a large external monitor to be able to organize multiple shells and code windows. The desktop would primarily be used to do any heavy lifting (like full builds and perhaps run a local regression environment). The laptop would be useful for coding away from the desk.

Cromulent

Mar 11, 2011, 10:01 AM

Unless you know what your doing.

Even if you do know what you are doing it is still slow. Boost Spirit is an excellent example. Of course you can reduce compilation times (the FAQ gives good tips on how to do so) my point was just that it is much more of an issue with C++ than other compiled languages.

JustSomeDude

Mar 11, 2011, 11:29 AM

The fastest hardware possible.

Unless you know what your doing.

Millions of lines of source code takes time to build regardless.

Over an hour? Have you ever heard of the Cheshire Cat idiom? It was used at a place I used to work at to reduce compile times down from over an hour to 10 minutes.

Are you talking about the pimpl pattern? It's used (somewhat).

lee1210

Mar 11, 2011, 11:46 AM

Millions of lines of source code takes time to build regardless.

Unless you have 1,000,000 lines divided into 1,000 files that are 1,000 lines each, or even smaller files. Then when you change 3-4 of these files the recompile should just be building these 3-4 objects and linking. The only time you should have to rebuild more than a few files at a time is if you've changed a header file and you'd rather make clean rather than finding every source file that header file change is going to affect to touch.

-Lee

JustSomeDude

Mar 11, 2011, 02:31 PM

Unless you have 1,000,000 lines divided into 1,000 files that are 1,000 lines each, or even smaller files. Then when you change 3-4 of these files the recompile should just be building these 3-4 objects and linking. The only time you should have to rebuild more than a few files at a time is if you've changed a header file and you'd rather make clean rather than finding every source file that header file change is going to affect to touch.

-Lee

An hour isn't my typical build time. But a full rebuild takes over an hour. Depending upon the change, though a build could take that long.

Who knows what the build time could be reduced to given infinite refactoring time. All I way saying, it was silly to assume that there isn't real, widely used software, being build that could utilize the power of Mac Pro. Honestly, I wonder how many of you realize the realities of working with large code bases with large number of programmers? Geez.