Modern Mac Development?

CDarklock asks: "I'm getting seriously interested in setting a new Mac next to my Windows box (to replace the Mac SE, which should tell you about how long it's been). But on Linux and Windows, I'm accustomed to writing lots of custom apps in C++ to fill the gaps around the system, but I haven't written anything on a Mac for something like fifteen years. As a professional Windows developer, what sort of expense am I facing to outfit a new Mac with development tools comparable to Microsoft's Visual Studio .NET, and what sort of learning curve should I expect?"

Comments

Xcode

[geoffspear]

The development tools come with the OS for free.

As for the learning curve, it may take some time to get used to things being done differently in OS X, but moving from C++ to Java isn't too difficult if you choose to use Java Cocoa.

Objective C is generally a better bet for Cocoa development, but it will have a slightly steeper learning curve, since the syntax is significantly different.

Other than the change of language, the Cocoa frameworks might take a while to learn, but the documentation is very good.

Re:Xcode

[Bastian]

If you're looking at writing native software, I would strongly recommend taking the long road and getting used to Objective-C, for a multitude of reasons.

The vast majority of frameworks available for OS X are written in Objective-C, and aren't necessarily well-documented. Even though there is an Objective-C - Java bridge, you'll still have to learn ObjC to use these frameworks just to learn how they work.

In my experience, ObjC apps run faster and consume less memory than Java Cocoa apps. I have also found that this tends to be a bigger issue in the Mac world than it is in the PC world, because Mac users tend to hold onto their computers for much longer. That, and the Java Runtime Environment for Macs doesn't seem to be nearly as well-optimized as the JRE for PCs. (well, Windows, at least.)

Massive portions of the OS X APIs have not been ported to Cocoa yet. If you use ObjC Cocoa, a lot of the ObjC objects you use will be toll-free bridged with the equivalent data structures in the Carbon libraries. It should also be a lot easier to deal with the even older C libraries that haven't even been included in Carbon yet.

But most of all, my impression is that if you're using the Cocoa libraries and the Java language, you have more or less given up all the benefits of the Java platform (such as the ability to write platform-independent apps), as well as the benefits of the Objective-C language (such as categories.) Unless you just really don't want to trade automatic garbage collection for reference counting or just really don't want to learn a new language, you're giving up a lot to gain a little by using Java for Cocoa development.

Re:Xcode

[swillden]

Objective C is generally a better bet for Cocoa development, but it will have a slightly steeper learning curve, since the syntax is significantly different.

Different, yes, but also very simple, so don't overestimate the level of effort required, assuming you know C.

Objective-C is an object-oriented extension to C, like C++, but it took a very different approach than C++. While C++ is large and complex, Objective-C is small and simple. The syntax is deliberately based on Smalltalk syntax, so if you know Smalltalk you'll have even less to learn. If you don't know Smalltalk, though, keep in mind that Smalltalk is a language whose syntax and rules you can literally master in an afternoon. Objective-C has added some new ideas, such as "categories" that Smalltalk didn't have, and there are some interactions between the Smalltalkish syntax and the underlying C syntax, so Objective-C takes a day for a C programmer to fully understand, rather than an afternoon (C++, of course, takes months).

For C++ and Java programmers who've never seen Smalltalk or another completely dynamically-typed language, I caution you to go slowly at first and take some time to understand the Smalltalk/Objective-C idea of what an "object" is. Or a "class". It's tempting to just dive right into the syntax, figuring that you know the "OO stuff", but the OO stuff in question is just different enough that you'll tie yourself in knots if you don't take a few minutes to understand what the differences are.

For experienced C++ programmers there's another interesting goody waiting... Objective-C++. The Objective-C and C++ extensions to C are orthogonal, so you can actually mix Objective-C and C++ code at will. Objective-C methods can take C++ objects as parameters and vice versa, and they can store pointers to each other.

The result is a very powerful language that lets you choose between the flat-out on-the-metal efficiency of good C++ code and the extreme flexibility of late-bound Objective-C code. And with C++'s polymorphism and Objective-C's categories (which provide limited compile-time typechecking) you even have a couple of steps in between. Be very, very, careful though. It's easy to create an unmaintainable mess when you start mixing things.

BTW, I should make a disclaimer here: I have looked at but never written code for Mac OS X. Everything I know about Objective-C comes from when I used to own a NeXT machine, so there may be a few differences. Based on the OS X code I've read, though, I don't think there are very many or that they're very large.

Re:Xcode

[cpct0]

Backgrounder on me: I'm currently writing things for Mac and PC, in 2003 and XCode, professionally.

I have to add to your very nice and concise description:

- Don't try to learn Objective-C by yourself, it's weird syntaxically and many many pitfalls can be avoided by carefully perusing and actually doing the examples for the first few chapters of Ora's Learning Cocoa with Objective-C (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/learncocoa2/). It's that weird. But it's totally worth it.

- XCode and VC both have the good things and bad things. I'd say that VC is slightly better because they got more years under the belt that XCode. They also got Visual Assist X, which is God-sent (http://www.wholetomato.com/). And only for the build styles, that are so well hidden in XCode, that ought to piss you off (on VC, you just select the configuration and here you go).

- As usual, you will pester while doing the transition. It's normal. You are accustomed to something and that "something" is not what you will have, hence you won't have your favorite little shortcut, or your thing you always do, software will react oddly too. Again, not because it's much worst, it's simply different.

All in all, it's a very interesting endeavor. Good luck!

Mike

Difficulty with VS.NET

[crmartin]

Your problem is managing to impede the Mac sufficiently to make it no better than .NET.

(Okay, so I am a recent convert.)

Apple Development

[Laplace]

Apple ships OS X with a developer tools CD. That's where you will want to start. It will give you most of your basic gnu development tools, along with Xcode (a decent IDE which is getting better with every revision) and some mac-specific profiling tools.

The next step is to sign up for the Apple Developer Connection. It has many membership levels ranging from free (so you can download developer tool updates) to very expensive. Update your compiler and tools to the latest version using this service.

If you like Java, downloading Eclipse might be a good way to go. I haven't used Eclipse much, but have enjoyed all of my experiences with it on OS X.

You will also want to install either Darwin Ports or Fink. These are package management systems that are based on BSD Ports and apt (respectively). I'm partial to Darwin Ports, but both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

If you want dead-tree documentation, the two books to start off with are "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X" by Aaron Hillegass and "Core Mac OS X and Unix Programming" by Mark Dalrymple and Aaron Hillegass. These guides are thorough, and the authors have been part of the Objective-C/Cocoa community since the Next days, and give good tutorials on what is the Mac philosophy of software development.

Another option for an IDE, which has decent but dated interfaces to the OS X world is CodeWarrior. I know a bunch of developers who swear by the CodeWarrior development platform. I really couldn't get into it myself, but it seems to have a nice toolkit for cross-platform development.

Have fun!

Other than the obvious

[amichalo]

Everyone has (and will continue) to discuss Xcode.

I can give some insight into the question of learning curve.

I develop .NET web apps at work on XP but have a Mac at home. there are a good many differences:

- The mac is like Linux. Get used to the Linux command line. If you don't know basic commands like LS instead of DIR then the curve will be steap. If you have used a *nix system or are a quick study, I would pickup an O'reilly book and get up to speed with things like user permissions (CHMOD) and GREP and the Pipe "|" for automation. Also know than things like Chron jobs replace Windows Scheduler. Get a book adn take the few hours to skim it. It will be a great reference if nothing else.

- Perpare yourself for more text editor usage and less sophisticated Integrated Developer Environment (IDE). Okay, let the Apple Xcoders begin their flame. I really feel that MS got some things very very right with Visual Studio .Net and it is way different developing .Net apps with the IDE in Visual Studio. I have developed php apps on the Mac and used TextEdit and BBedit (a great OS X only editor). IMHO, seasoned coders who really know their stuff will do well transitioning from VS.net, beginers will have a few less crutches to use.

- You're gonna need an office suite. MS Office.X is great, but for the money, I kinda like OO.o and use NeoOffice/J myself. A Mac alternative to Visio is OmniGraffle and is better IMHO.

- Get used to few, but higher quality choices. Okay, this one is touchy too but there are few fewer choices for software and websites to Google for a problem but the ones you do find for whatever the task might be are of better quality I think. Apple does a great many things right the first time so even if an article is written for Jaguar, it may very well work under Tiger, etc. I have found this very frustrating as I try to install something under IIS 6 with a document written for IIS 5 for example.

- Don't underestimate the hardware. Okay, your budget, your choice, but I would be more inclined to recommend to a serious developer buying a Power Mac (watch out, rumors of new updates in May so careful with the timing) over a Mac mini. The Mac mini is great for a home user wanting to check email, but if you are going to develop, compile, and potentially deploy Web Objects and such, don't underestimate the G5's supperiority to it's 32-bit father. At a minimum, follow all the recommendations and get 512mb ram (I have a Gig and use it).

Lastly, "Welcome".

Re:is this..

[amichalo]

There is more to developing on a Mac than downloading Xcode.

I think the thread is worth exploring. There is a learning curve to moving from Windows to OS X in general, and more to learn when switching as a developer. The move from Linux to OS X is far less of a curve, but still exists.

Let's give the thread a chance!

Xcode + a good book or two

[anactofgod]

Is all you need to write the sort of apps that you were talking about.

Xcode, as every other post has said, is free.

Wrt books, I'd recommend "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, 2nd ed", by Aaron Hillegass. Aaron has a lot of experience teaching NextStep, WebObjects and OS X development, and his book reflect that experience. It is excellent - much better than the O'Reilly offerings I've seen. Big Nerd Ranch also has a book about programming the underpinnings of OS X called "Core Mac OS X and Unix Programming." Haven't seen this version book yet, but apparently it's the spiffed up, published version of BNR's student guide, so I'd bet it's pretty well done. You can get both together for $96.20 from Amazon.

There are other good references, tutorials, as well, some free on-line, and some for purchase. Do some Googling and mining on Amazon or B&N to find one that suits your purposes.

BTW, OS X has some very strong scripting capabilities built in that you might find useful for the kinds of apps you typically develop. And, as someone else noted, Ruby and other cool hacking languages come shipped with OS X and work well with XCode. Also, Eclipse, with all its goodness, runs nicely on OS X.

Lastly, if you want to put the limitations of "modern" programming languages behind you and get back to the future of software development, OS X has some of the best OSS Lisp implementations. SBCL or OpenMCL (if you want to do Cocoa apps), plus SLIME and Emacs is all a real programmer needs, and it's all free. *grynn*

Avail yourself of the online resources.

[mellon]

My three main bookmarks for Cocoa help right now are:

http://rentzsch.com/
http://www.idevapps.com/fo rum/
http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/x2004-12-05b. htm

The main challenges with Cocoa are learning how to navigate project builder so as to connect things up, and figuring out all the undocumented interdependencies between Cocoa objects.

One of the things that really screwed me up for a long time was not realizing that the UI objects aren't re-entrant, so if you call a UI object from a thread other than the main thread, you're likely to get random crashes.

The biggest thing for me though was figuring out project builder - figuring out how outlets and actions work. This is particularly a problem because there's no file you can edit to do outlets and connections - you have to do it with the GUI, and it's extremely counterintuitive. Once you figure it out it's easy, though. So it's good to just type your way through a couple of tutorials just to get the hang of it.

If you want to look at some example source code, I have something up on sourceforge that's (a) not trivial, but (b) not heinously complex, so it might be worth looking at. http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/gofer

Re:Defend your position!?

[alanQuatermain]

I've been using Xcode for things for years now, and the only thing that takes any real time for me is the precompilation step.

If you build a Cocoa/Carbon application with only a couple source files, it may take a while to build the whole thing, but that's more than likely just the precompilation step (which is likely precompiling a large percentage of the header files installed on your system, and only happens on first build or after a 'clean' or 'clean all').

That said, I rarely have any problem with such applications. In fact, I quite often build one-source-file testing applications with Xcode just to try things out - for example, to see what error codes are returned by FSMountServerVolumeSync() under different situations (already mounted by same user, already mounted by other user, invalid volume, invalid server, invalid user/pass, etc.). I rarely have a problem with it.

Perhaps the tradeoff between long precompilation time and size of other source code seems wrong to you - but in that case you can always turn it off in the target settings. Internally it just calls through to gcc, and there doesn't seem to be any significant overhead that I can see...

-Q

Cocoa is the way to go

[tim1724]

If you're serious about Mac OS X development and want to write applications which blend in well with the Mac environment (necessary if you expect Mac users to actually want to use your applications) then you must learn how Mac applications are supposed to look and behave and figure out how to apply the Human Interface Guidelines to your application. (Note that the HIG is not always 100% accurate .. there are places where you should deviate from it slightly in order to match what Apple's apps do.) This is important, as if you do anything unMaclike then your application will be bashed as a bad Windows port (even if you wrote it from scratch) and no Mac users will touch it.

You have two ways to go in terms of APIs. Cocoa and Carbon. Cocoa is a refined version of NeXT's OpenStep. Carbon is a cleaned up version of the old Classic Mac OS API (but with a huge number of changes .. it is much improved.) Carbon is straight C code, and the concepts involved are more similar to Windows or X11 than Cocoa's design. But it's big and complicated, and would take a long time to learn. Also, there's a lot more stuff that you have to do in Carbon to make your application behave properly.

Cocoa gives you most of the behavior for free. You'll write less code, and you'll probably end up with a more Mac-like application. (It's entirely possible to write a a well-behaved Carbon app, but you'll have a lot more to learn in order to do it right, as fewer things are done for you automatically.)

With Cocoa you'll have to learn Objective C. This is not a big deal. If you know C, then you can learn the handful of additions which comprise Objective C in less than an hour. It's a very simple language.

Theoretically you can program Cocoa apps in Java, but I do not suggest that you attempt this. Java does not really fit into the Cocoa model very well (it's not nearly dynamic enough) and was shoehorned in as a way to attract developers who refused to learn ObjC. This was a mistake on Apple's part, and they seem to have realized it ... they no longer promote the use of Java in Cocoa.

I strongly recommend that you spend some time with Hillegass's book on Cocoa. Objective C an elegant language, and is certainly the fastest way to develop Mac applications.

If you are a diehard C++ fan, then you may be better off with Carbon, but there will probably be a bigger learning curve as the Carbon libraries are more complex. (Carbon has a long complicated history, from its Pascal roots and old Classic Mac OS constructs (resource forks, FSspecs, Gworlds, etc.) and repeated changes in design (GetNextEvent() replaced by WaitNextEvent() and then Carbon Events, QuickDraw replaced by Color QuickDraw and now by Quartz 2D) so it takes quite a while to figure it all out.

I'd give ObjC and Cocoa a chance first. You can always use Objective-C++ to combine an ObjC user interface with a C++ backend, if you need to port old code. Be sure to check out MacSTL as it provides some nifty stuff to treat some Core Foundation and Foundation objects in an STL manner.

As for tools ... well, the Xcode IDE and all the GNU tools (gcc, gdb, etc.) come with Mac OS X, so you shouldn't need to buy anything.

Re:XCode is free...

[BoomerSooner]

ADC is free
ADC 1 year subscription for Student is $99
ADC 1 year subscription with 1 Hardware coupon is $500
ADC 1 year subscription with 10 Hardware coupons is $3500

The Hardware discount is significant if you're getting a high end mac. I suggest the $500 subscription and you'll save that on a high end powerbook or G5 powermac

Click United States Then ADC Hardware Purchase Program.

Big savings plus it's like subscribing to the MSDN you get cool shit all year.

OSX has many free, high quality development tools

[babbage]

As a professional Windows developer, what sort of expense am I facing to outfit a new Mac with development tools comparable to Microsoft's Visual Studio .NET, and what sort of learning curve should I expect

Whether or not it's comparable is debatable, but every copy of OSX includes XCode, which is a full suite of graphical and command line development tools: programs, libraries, examples, and copious documentation. And it's free.

So there's that.

Additionally, if you get a copy of Tiger -- which a Mac bought now should either include or be eligible for an upgrade to -- then you get Dashboard, which will let you develop small desktop applications using, as I understand it, Javascript as the development language.

So there's also that.

Additionally, if you get a copy of Tiger, you will get Automator, which is a kind of graphical scripting application that can do all kinds of things. From what I can tell, it is going to be great in all the ways that the appropriately-acronymed AppleScript Studio wasn't.

So there's that, too.

Plus, every version of OSX has supported the full range of Unix shells and scripting languages, so you can write command-line, X11, and sometimes Aqua-based graphical applications using languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby, the Bourne shell, etc.

So to top it all off, there's that.

And to drive the point home, you get all of this for free with every Mac. I've heard nice things about Visual Studio, and maybe there's a lot it can do that the Mac side doesn't have, but I strongly suspect that the full range of programming, scripting, and automation tools available on the Mac will run rings around it without costing you a dime more than the cost of the computer [and OS, if you're upgrading, which you won't be in this case].

You're kidding, right?

[JonTurner]

>>XCode is far too bulky

As compared to Visual Studio?!? Woah.

Re:As a Windows programmer..

[Paradox]

Look, it's one thing to say "I had a bad experience with XCode." It's another to say, "XCode is the worst thing ever." I can't even find words to describe how juvenille calling an IDE "stupid" is in this context.

When you just want to build a damn executable it has you messing with build targets and all sorts of garbage that I will never care about.

Umm, it starts out working with sane defaults. In practice, I almost never need to mess with those settings until the very last steps of my application. Not the beginning. The only thing you might mess with in there is what libraries you link, but that's the wrong place to add them.

Sorry, but I liked my old way of working - you know, where I was productive and didn't have to learn the quirks of your stupid IDE.

You're advocating Eclipse and claim you don't have time to learn the quirks of a "stupid IDE"? Gee, that's the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? Eclipse is one of the single most... erhem... "feature rich" products I've ever seen. Learning it is more of a chore than learning emacs, and that's saying something.

If I was ONLY developing for the Mac I might take the time to learn it.. but I'm not, so I will never waste my time on it.

XCode is-say it with me now-a OS X Application Development Environment. If you're expecting it to be something else, prepare to have those expectations failed. It can do a lot, and it's a complete, lightweight IDE with a very natural way of organizing OS X projects and integrating with IB.

... AND I still get command-line compilation if I don't feel like using an IDE that day.

You never lose it using XCode. xcodemake has always been there.

It sounds like you had unreasonable expectations for XCode, and they weren't met. And now you think it's the tool's fault for being nothing more than what it is.

Re:If you love .net

[davidbro]

>On OSX, the platform -- not counting the Unix foundation -- is young

Are you kidding? Cocoa is based on NeXTStep, which has been actively refined since the late 80's. Win32 dates from the early 90's, and .NET is even younger still.

Interface Builder, the primary Cocoa/NeXTStep GUI tool, was the first of it's kind. I saw it for the first time in 1989.

The class library that makes up Cocoa is one of the most mature frameworks out there.

Good Intro to Objective-C

[EccentricAnomaly]

Apple has a free mini-book that intros Objective-C and gives a good feel for its capabilities:

ObjC.pdf

I highly recommend it to anyone coming from a C++ or Java background who is wondering what the big deal about Cocoa is.

And if this little PDF catches your Fancy, Aaron Hillegass has an excellant book: "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X". Another good book is "Building Cocoa Applications" by Garfinkel and Mahoney.

Top Ten Reasons to Become a Mac Programmer...

[Space Coyote]

Just wrote these today, coincidentally... 10. All the blue-coloured widgets and background images are good for the soul. 9. You can keep a Terminal.app window open and pretend to be a Unix hacker. 8. Crappy enterprise data access support means no horrible database programming. 7. People will think you're some kind of artist or writer or something else less socially leper-ous than being a programmer. 6. Interface Builder's NeXTStep heritage will force you into a Model-View-Controller architecture so strongly that even design-as-you-go nitwits like me will be saved from their own poor planning. 5. No matter what you do, Wired will eventually write a feature story about you. 4. All the built-in eye candy and automatic alignment guides will make you look like you know something about UI design. 3. The development tools don't cost more than what your stupid shareware program will probably earn you. 2. The Indian programmer who stole your Windows coding job can't afford to buy a Mac. 1. Chicks dig iBooks.

Like everything else...

[menace3society]

Switching to Mac development is like switching to the Mac in all other respects. If you're hoping for something that looks and behaves exactly like Windows, but has all the chick appeal of a Mac, you're not going to be happy. Apple does things very differently than Microsoft, and that is true of handling files, users, system programs, and so forth, and also of application development. Conventions are different for users, and they are different for developers as well. Apple gives *very* sage advice wrt interfaces; they've been at it, and been doing it better most of the time, than anyone else in the business.

If you want help programming, plenty of people have given links. If you want help with the interface end of things, try using some of the best Apple applications and see how things "work"--iTunes, The Omni Group, Bare Bones Software, Lemkesoft's Graphic Converter, Rancho's NetNewsWire. There are many others, but trying these on should give you a feel for what makes a great Mac App. Also, it is a commonly-perceived problem that there is no great mac Word-processing software. There are acceptable entries, including MS Office, and several others, but this is one area where OS X is gravely deficient (if you want to write the best Mac WP ever, feel free! I'd even buy a copy).

Lots of people (i.e., Windows & Linux Fanpersons) will deride many interface trends as "fluff"; do not make this mistake. Apple is pretty careful about what stuff they include, and while there might be a few things in there for no real reason (animated screensavers as you desktop background?), most of the "fluff" has a damn good reason to be there.

Re: Obj-C learning curve

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

[object methodcall:parameter] isn't that much harder than object.methodcall(parameter)

Further, if memory serves, it's actually syntactic sugar for objc_msgSend( object, "methodcall:", parameter );

Of course, if you actually use it that way outside the debugger, I hear Steve Jobs personally flies to your house and takes your Mac away from you.

YLFI