Slashdot Mirror
Intel Ports Developer Tools to Mac OS X
turnitover writes "According to eWEEK, "Intel Corp. will port its software developer tools to Mac OS X and will ship its first beta later this year, the chip maker told developers on Tuesday at its first-ever session on Mac OS X at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco." This, as Apple is working on its first Intel-based Macs, due sometime in 2006. Will the promise of the same feature set and the same tools (for Windows, Mac and Linux) mean the future of cross-platform development is here?"
Will the promise of the same feature set and the same tools (for Windows, Mac and Linux) mean the future of cross-platform development is here?
the present of cross plataform is already here, it's called GCC.
So it doesn't compile ObjC-Cocoa apps.... And Apple is abandoning the Classic environment available on the x86 platform...
And there's no IOKit....
So what's this going to compile? Core Foundation apps and Carbon apps without any vector code?
Ummmm. Well, it's a start.
Yes it's crossplatform alright if the compiler in question works for x86, x86 and you guessed it: x86.
What's making the porting hard in case of different software ecologies is not the compiler, cause gcc is really crossplatform and ubiquitous for years now. It's all those OS and otherwise libraries (gtk vs. cocoa vs. GDI) which do it. And I don't see Intel selling any crossplatform versions of those
Yes, if you define "cross platform" as being restricted to Windows, Mac and Linux. Also, this does not include PPC, which is another platform that Mac runs on. I am not optimistic that this is any sort of harbinger of great things, but it will be very nice to have three platforms that share the *same* hardware architecture, roughtly speaking.
Currently hooked on AMP
I really think eWeek isn't going down anytime soon, save your function for some other day :)
My UID is prime... is yours?
Because all mainstream personal computers will use the same x86 processor in the next two years, certain programmers who deal with assembly issues will be relieved. However, we still have Carbon/Cocoa, Win32, and GTK/QT/POSIX to deal with.
And we currently have cross-platform tools. It's called the GNU toolkit (autoconf, gcc, gdb, gmake, and a few other handy applications that are used on just about every platform availiable).
Bummer! I guess that rather implies that even with dual cores raplidly taking and Apple typically taking the high-performance road, that Apple is going to have cheap single processor Macs as well. Wish they'd have set the bar a bit higher, all things considered.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Apple is switching from gcc to intel's compiler? What the hell is going on here, all of a sudden apple is becomeing less OSS friendly...
... ICC only runs on x86. OS X had its native "made by processor designers' home company(tm)" compiler when it was (and still is) on PowerPC, now that Apple's going to Intel, it just seems logical that Intel does this. At least to show a little support to Apple.
:)
IBM compilers (xl* compilers) were proprietary software and still were ported to OS X too, and AFAIK had better performances than gcc on PPC970 (even though Apple did help on optimizing gcc on G4/G5), just like ICC is better than gcc on x86 for most purposes (check benchmarks for yourselves).
No I'm not an Apple fanboy (please! I don't have any Apples nor plan to buy any) and I don't care much about Intel either. I'm more a free software guy trying to run only free software as far as I can for different reasons... And still I don't see how Apple could be less OSS friendly just because some other company (may it be Intel or not) releases closed softwares.
Where does it say Apple will stop using gcc themselves (and distributing it with OSX)? gcc runs on plenty of hardware and os'es
However, I'm not saying Apple is supporting "open source" software. I'd say that they're using FOSS smartly for now, but I don't see them in the OSS camp.
Lastly, ICC having better results than gcc gives the gcc team a great challenge and gcc4 is already a big improvement. ICC on OSX gives more choices to OSX developpers who would need good optimization for intensive arithmetic operations (where ICC shines). Anyway, gcc has strictly nothing to fear from icc, they're aimed at totally different "markets", and gcc is free, so what's to fear?
Now that all the major options for desktop systems run on intel, they want to see os competition. Erosion of Microsoft's desktop monopoly by Apple no longer equates to loss of market share for intel. Now they'd like to see Microsoft's influence reduced and be the only 800 lb. gorilla in the x86 world.
I dont think they are focused on IBM powered consoles as much as they are focused on being the last monopoly standing in the desktop market....or at least making sure that if AMD takes them down in court, nobody else is standing either.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
/.> Will the promise of the same feature set and the same tools (for Windows, Mac and Linux) mean the future of cross-platform development is here?
No.
Ask AMD.
>"When Apple tried to "prove" that the G5 was "better" than the Intel, it purposely didn't use the Intel tools, but used the GNU tools instead."
Yes, that was to level the playing field... not to show which one was faster... because Apple could have used their own compiler and got faster results too... but the goal was to see which was faster... and then the G5 was indeed faster.
>"Their desire to use the Intel tools now demonstrates that they didn't use the Intel tools in their G5/Intel benchmarks because they knew Intel tools outperform GNU for Intel."
You're right but then, they never said otherwise. You, like so many others equated the use of GNU rather than Intels compiler as a means of skewing the results when it was about creating a level playing field.
It isn't Apple that is announcing these tools. It is Intel that is touting them.
Apple has been silent.
I know it is /., but you might want to consider reading the occational article.
SteveM
With Apple, they've finally got a company that doesn't care about all that legacy PC crap. Apple will build the x86 machines that Intel has always wanted.
That's why Intel considers this to be such a big deal.
Can someone please shead some light over the AltiVec part ocf the article?
Why would Intel even consider supporting AltiVec in a compiler for x86? This just sounds bizarr, considering altivec only exists in the PPC world...
Maby they really mean compiler-level conversion of AltiVec calls to SSE calls?
When in doubt, act determined. Business 101
Using the IBM benchmark would have been even more artificial since almost nobody would have used it to do their compiles wheras many open source projects would have used GGC on both Intel and PPC.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Intel sure keeps making a big deal of this Apple deal.
Of course they are. They want people to know that the crappy user experience they get from Windows isn't Intel's fault.
Intel's been trying to get the Mac OS on their processors since 1984.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Please RTFA, noone said they would use ICC on PPC, its just stating that ICC will be able to produce binaries for OSX. Heck, if this article didnt exist, I would be upset. Damned if I would use GCC over ICC, ESPECIALLY, if I was positive the only chip the binary would be used on is an Intel chip. ICC may not be the best for Windows Development seeing as the large numbers of AMD processors are abound, but this makes perfect sense for OSX.
Microsoft and Intel are not friends. They are two companies that seemed to have stumbled upon a huge monopoly that they have to share. With NT 3.51/4.0, Microsoft tried to kick Intel out of its position with cross-platform support, and failed. Intel doesn't have a full monopoly because of AMD.
Basically, the closer you are to a monopoly, the more excess profits you get. Intel can't extract huge profits because AMD provides competition and MS grabs a big chunk.
Competition for OSes means that the excess profits can flow back to hardware, where Intel wins.
Remember, MS moving the XBox to the PPC is HUGE, because it means that they are getting some developers at least to support Win32/PPC, and I wouldn't rule out a run at PPC computers from MS... Hell, they could do it as MS hardware, and grab all the profits.
Competition is good for consumers. This is what we've been missing during the 10 year run (Win 95 - present) where MS and Intel monopolized the computer market.
Alex