Re: CodeWarrior
Personally, I dumped CW in the 6-7-8 transition when they kept promising OS X support but couldn't deliver. gcc from Jaguar on is quite fast compiling relative to previous gcc, but, you are correct, nowhere near as fast as CW or of course MSVC++. Runtime-wise, I don't see a difference in my code between CW-compiled and gcc-compiled, but YMMV.
Unfortunately, Metrowerks severely screwed the pooch with their OS X 10.0/1 support early on, making promises left and right that were never delivered, only to finally say, "Oh, well, you should upgrade to CW 8; we have that fixed now!". They won't be getting my money for a few more years.
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.
[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]
Personally, I dumped CW in the 6-7-8 transition when they kept promising OS X support but couldn't deliver. gcc from Jaguar on is quite fast compiling relative to previous gcc, but, you are correct, nowhere near as fast as CW or of course MSVC++. Runtime-wise, I don't see a difference in my code between CW-compiled and gcc-compiled, but YMMV.
Unfortunately, Metrowerks severely screwed the pooch with their OS X 10.0/1 support early on, making promises left and right that were never delivered, only to finally say, "Oh, well, you should upgrade to CW 8; we have that fixed now!". They won't be getting my money for a few more years.