Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

WWDC: 64-Bit ProjectBuilder?

Excellent. I'd love for some really cool 970 apps to be available as soon as the 970s are released.
 
Obvious

I think everyone will agree that some sort of 64bit architecture will be discussed at WWDC. I don't think that this means we will really be seeing one at that time. Although, I am putting off a major purchase in the hopes that it may be true.
 
I think this just means that there is even more of a chance that the 970 will make it's debut with Panther at WWDC
 
To be honest, I thought we expected this anyway! I certainly did :)

Edit: OK, I guess we're talking about the When, not the What.
 
It's the compiler

Just wanted to point out that it is the compiler we have to worry about. It doesn't matter at all if Project Builder is 64bit enabled, although maybe it will need to have some settings for building different binary types, i.e. Both 32 and 64, or one or the other.

So just worry about gcc, Project Builder.
 
Originally posted by BlueJekyll
Just wanted to point out that it is the compiler we have to worry about. It doesn't matter at all if Project Builder is 64bit enabled, although maybe it will need to have some settings for building different binary types, i.e. Both 32 and 64, or one or the other.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is not a great achievement to make the IDE 970-ready.
And gcc 3.3 is already enabled to produce PowerPC 970-optimized code. (This was mentioned before on MacRumors.)

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.c...power4.md?rev=1.4.4.4&content-type=text/plain
 
Re: It's the compiler

Originally posted by BlueJekyll
Just wanted to point out that it is the compiler we have to worry about. It doesn't matter at all if Project Builder is 64bit enabled, although maybe it will need to have some settings for building different binary types, i.e. Both 32 and 64, or one or the other.

So just worry about gcc, Project Builder.
Click to expand...

I thought I heard that GCC was being worked on running on a 970 chip.

Of course if I herd I would be a bunch of cows... :p
 
More than the compiler

I have to wonder what more there is to this story, if indeed it turns out to true.

I know that Metrowerks is a Motorola company, and Project Builder is on it's way on replacing CodeWarrior, a very expensive piece of software ( Much like the way IE killed Netscape ).

So I guess the real questions are...at the risk of turning this into a pure development thread....

1) What is Project builder lacking, or what is CodeWarrior doing poorly that can be improved upon in a new 970 version of Project Builder.

2) What features would actually take several sessions at the conference?

3) Will this new version allow writing in C++? Maybe Assembly? Howabout HTML ?

4) Will we be able to write Win32/X86 code on it too, making OSX more of a Developer's platform? ( Highly doubted )

I suspect that GCC will already have compiler enhancements for this chip, so I guess this is a somewhat moot point.

Feel free to speculate / flame / etc.


Max
 
Re: More than the compiler

Originally posted by maxvamp
I have to wonder what more there is to this story, if indeed it turns out to true.

I know that Metrowerks is a Motorola company, and Project Builder is on it's way on replacing CodeWarrior, a very expensive piece of software ( Much like the way IE killed Netscape ).

So I guess the real questions are...at the risk of turning this into a pure development thread....

1) What is Project builder lacking, or what is CodeWarrior doing poorly that can be improved upon in a new 970 version of Project Builder.

2) What features would actually take several sessions at the conference?

3) Will this new version allow writing in C++? Maybe Assembly? Howabout HTML ?

4) Will we be able to write Win32/X86 code on it too, making OSX more of a Developer's platform? ( Highly doubted )

I suspect that GCC will already have compiler enhancements for this chip, so I guess this is a somewhat moot point.

Feel free to speculate / flame / etc.


Max
Click to expand...

I'll be glad to see code-warrior go away. I personally don't think Project builder lacks anything. At least anything I need.

Perhaps they could make a project builder starting point for iTunes plugins, since right now they have to be programmed with a poorly done SDK.

3. You can already code in C++, or objective-C++ for that matter. Do Cocoa classes exist in C++? Well no, but there's a good reason. Objective-C is just a better language for encapsulation purposes than C++. Cocoa has some of its classes written in Java, but they're quite bad. I can imagine the same thing happening for C++...yuck.

Project builder supports some web programming things to do with PERL, MySQL, ect, but I'm not well versed on them as I'm not a web programmer. HTML is already supported in the way that any text editor can pump out HTML since its not a compiled language.

4. As for assembly or compiling for PC, why on earth would Apple spend its time and money on this? True, gcc supports compiling for PC already, but why would Apple want to even enable it?
 
X-86

Item number four was the only thing I could think of that CodeWarrior does, that PB does not. I actually have no interest in seeing this feature either.

Visual Studio.net works rather well, and serves the windows folk for their needs.

Maybe we need better process and thread tracking tools?

Max
 
Answers

I have to wonder what more there is to this story, if indeed it turns out to true.

I know that Metrowerks is a Motorola company, and Project Builder is on it's way on replacing CodeWarrior, a very expensive piece of software ( Much like the way IE killed Netscape ).

So I guess the real questions are...at the risk of turning this into a pure development thread....

1) What is Project builder lacking, or what is CodeWarrior doing poorly that can be improved upon in a new 970 version of Project Builder.

2) What features would actually take several sessions at the conference?

3) Will this new version allow writing in C++? Maybe Assembly? Howabout HTML ?

4) Will we be able to write Win32/X86 code on it too, making OSX more of a Developer's platform? ( Highly doubted )

I suspect that GCC will already have compiler enhancements for this chip, so I guess this is a somewhat moot point.

Feel free to speculate / flame / etc.


Max
Click to expand...

1. Project Builder as of the December release (the latest) is quite unstable in general use. There were rumors that it was a beta, but it feels like a poorly done release. Really, there is little Apple can improve on. This tool has been around for over a decade and has been refined to perfection. As for support of other languages, thats a different question all together.

2. Features like how to write optimized 64bit assembly would take quite a while. There are even minor things that could chance in the way Objective-C works that Apple could go over, and heaven forbid Apple may make Interface Builder easier to use to add things like Preference Panels (aka NSToolbar) and other minor things. There is many things they could discuss, but nothing sticks out like a sore thumb to change, replace or add.

3. As stated before, PB supports C++. Here is a short list of languages that it supports right now.

- C
- C++
- Objective-C
- Objective-C++
- Assembly (PPC only I assume)
- Java (many variants including swing)
- JSP
- HTML

Now, thats a small list. Many people could add to it, but thats all I have delved into or witnessed. As to the previous poster, writing Objective-C++ is great when hooking into existing C++ code and I assume that somewhere in Mac OS X there is C++ code handling the Cocoa classes. I shall have to ask some people about that though so don't hold me to it.

4. There is no reason to write Win32/X86 to start with, but what type of code are you going to deal with? We have Microsoft's gunk (VC++, VB, add .Net to them, C#, J#, et al) or any of the other IDE's? I can write C++ code on Mac OS X in Project Builder, place it on a pc, compile it with minor changes and it will run fine. Apple gives us the dev tools for free for a reason...so we write Mac OS X applications.

As for SDK hooks in Project Builder...well...we may see it but I highly doubt it.

Mat
 
Once again it looks like Apple will come out with a machine whos true potential wont be seen until much later when they update the OS and companies update thier apps. News like this pretty much means that applications wont run as fast as they can until they are updated, like what happened with altivec. I am sure the REV 2 Powermacs will be worth every penny since they should have 10.3 on them but the people who buy the Powermacs now will have to buy 10.3 just months after they bought a new system. I hope it gives unoptomized apps plenty of a speed boost to satisfy the early adopters and justify the price. Remember how the early G4's were faster than G3's when they were running altivec code but around the same speed when they werent? The 970 should be much faster than current G4's without updating any code...right?
 
CodeWarrior

Originally posted by holmesf
I'll be glad to see code-warrior go away.
Click to expand...

Why take away an alternative? You have never used CodeWarrior, have you? The build process is an order of magnitude faster in CW than in PB. Also the code completion and code reference features are way superior in CW. And the GUI of the IDE feels a lot snappier.
Until Apple can provide the same speed and completeness, no professional programmer I can think of would ever be glad to see CodeWarrior go away.

[edit: foreigner's typos...]

Oh, I forgot to add: In every one of my personal tests, CW produced faster code, typically 5-25% faster.

[edit: addition]
 
Originally posted by reyesmac
Once again it looks like Apple will come out with a machine whos true potential wont be seen until much later when they update the OS and companies update thier apps. News like this pretty much means that applications wont run as fast as they can until they are updated, like what happened with altivec. I am sure the REV 2 Powermacs will be worth every penny since they should have 10.3 on them but the people who buy the Powermacs now will have to buy 10.3 just months after they bought a new system.
Click to expand...

Apple usually gives people who bought right before an update like that a major deal if not a free upgrade right? Its all of us who paid for jag'wire' who will have to pay the full $129 again.
 
kinda off topic, and I'm sure redundant, but look at the blurb from the apple site regarding WWDC:

Get an in-depth look at the future of the Mac platform and a preview release of the next major version of Mac OS X, codenamed “Panther,” at the Worldwide Developers Conference 2003, Jun 23-27 in San Francisco. Register by Friday, May 23, to save. [May 20]

bold text is the part I'm talking about...

Future of the Mac Platform?

umm.. would they be talking about 64bit 970 processors?

Anyways,
feeding my measly fuel to the fire....

_f
 
Wish list...

I'd like to see a kind of IntiliSense® included for the pure Cocoa classes. Coupled with a nice project indexer, which would allow auto-completion of your own code. VC++ is very good for this and makes writing/modifying complex code a lot easier. See any of the Quake II/III source for how much of an aid it can be.
 
Re: CodeWarrior

Originally posted by leo
Why take away an alternative? You have never used CodeWarrior, have you? The build process is an order of magnitude faster in CW than in PB. Also the code completion and code reference features are way superior in CW. And the GUI of the IDE feels a lot snappier.
Until Apple can provide the same speed and completeness, no professional programmer I can think of would ever be glad to see CodeWarrior go away.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'd certainly have to agree.

PB is unquestionably very powerful, and free; but IMO CW is immeasurably faster at compilation; plus better for prototyping. I can't understand why anyone would want CW to disappear!?!

Mike.
 
Re: Answers

Originally posted by mj_1903
1. Project Builder as of the December release (the latest) is quite unstable in general use. There were rumors that it was a beta, but it feels like a poorly done release. Really, there is little Apple can improve on. This tool has been around for over a decade and has been refined to perfection. As for support of other languages, thats a different question all together.
Click to expand...

Have you have ever used emacs, eclipse or visual studio? There are all *sorts* of things that PB could improve upon. Smart code indenting. Keyboard macros. Easy extensions. Code completion. Autogeneration/maintenence of header files. Better CVS integration (see eclipse). A non-hack integration with Interface Builder (Diff!?! I have to run a friggen DIFF every time I change the NIB? What the hell is this crap?)

Originally posted by mj_1903

3. As stated before, PB supports C++. Here is a short list of languages that it supports right now.

- C
- C++
- Objective-C
- Objective-C++
- Assembly (PPC only I assume)
- Java (many variants including swing)
- JSP
- HTML
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather develop in notepad for anything other than Obj-C. At least its fast. PB's text editing abilities are a joke.

Personally, as you can probably guess, I hope they make some massive improvements. My dream? PB with tight IB integration (no diffing crap), and embedded emacs with code completion hacked on top of it for ObjC code.

Mmmmmmm. emacs. _drools_

Cheers,
prat
 
Originally posted by reyesmac
Once again it looks like Apple will come out with a machine whos true potential wont be seen until much later when they update the OS and companies update thier apps. News like this pretty much means that applications wont run as fast as they can until they are updated, like what happened with altivec. I am sure the REV 2 Powermacs will be worth every penny since they should have 10.3 on them but the people who buy the Powermacs now will have to buy 10.3 just months after they bought a new system. I hope it gives unoptomized apps plenty of a speed boost to satisfy the early adopters and justify the price. Remember how the early G4's were faster than G3's when they were running altivec code but around the same speed when they werent? The 970 should be much faster than current G4's without updating any code...right?
Click to expand...

Yes, it should!

It has been said a thousand times before, and obviously has to be said again:
Please understand that the processor going 64 bit is in most cases completely unrelated to speed improvements. For some apps, using 64 bit variables were only 32 bits are needed will be a performance loss, and they will hopefully not do that. For some very special apps, the possibility of having an address space larger than 32 bits (4GBytes) may result in a performance improvement.

The 970 is supposed be faster in itself than a 745x, also in 32 bit mode.

People confuse this shift with the Intel 16->32 bit shift which also made several other changes.

Please also understand that there is no change in the powerpc spec for going 64 bit - the powerpc (and power) architecture has been prepared for this all the time, only that the few extra things that needs to be done for having is 64 bit ppc is optional and wasn't implemented in the older ppcs.
 
Re: More than the compiler

Originally posted by maxvamp
So I guess the real questions are...at the risk of turning this into a pure development thread....
Click to expand...

AHHH you jinxed it! now look at this mess. back to the core issue . . . this dosent say "the 970s will be at WWDC" it dosent say they wont either tho. i remain meditative.

k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back