Intel Software Development Products for OSX

rgraham writes "Intel has released a number of development tools for OSX, including a C++ and Fortran compiler. I for one would be interested to see some benchmarks of code compiled using these tools and Apple's own Xcode."

Comments

Benchmarks already exist

[ChrisDolan]

Apple uses GCC behind Xcode, so just look for the already-existing comparions of GCC against Intel's compilers.

apple uses objective c / uses of fortan

[acomj]

Fortan is big in the modeling world, still. Oddly enough for a language that is that old, gives clout in science and engineering worlds.

The C++ is nice but since most osx programs are written on objective c, probably of little use.

Those math libraries look like the ticket though. Everone likes highly optimized math libraries.

Re:apple uses objective c / uses of fortan

[TheRaven64]

FORTRAN has a vector data type, which makes it a lot easier to optimise certain types of code for AltiVec, SSE, etc. If you write the code in C, you have to translate it into scalar intrinsics, and the compiler has to work backwards to attempt to determine the vector operations you meant. In FORTRAN you provide the vector operations, and all the compiler has to worry about is aligning the data so it can be used by the vector unit. For algorithms that can be expressed in a vectorised form, this makes FORTRAN a much better language for writing fast code, which is why it is still used a lot.

Re:apple uses objective c / uses of fortan

[TheRaven64]

The vector type introduced by GCC is vector-unit dependent. For an AltiVec target, for example, it is 128-bits. The only operations on it are those directly supported by the vector unit. You have to manually break your data into vectors of the correct size. In FORTRAN, you can operate on arbitrary sized vectors as if they were scalars. The compiler can easily break your large vector into blocks that will fit the vector unit and modify your scalar operations to correspond to individual or compound vector statements. It can also distribute your operations between the vector and scalar units on the CPU easily.

The reason why new Macs are so much faster?

[yabos]

I wonder if this is the main reason why OS X is so much faster on the Intel chip. I can see the Powerbook getting a good speedboost but 4-5x is a lot more than what you'd expect.

Re:The reason why new Macs are so much faster?

[jtrascap]

Actually, the biggest single hardware reason isn't the processor but the bus speed. For example, my 9-month old (snif!) PowerBook 15" running at 1.67 Mhz on a 167 MHz (10:1) bus. The competative 1.67Mhz model of new MacBookPros have a 667 MHz bus = a shade under 4x speed difference. Then you can add in the better Intel-optimized compilers, GCC libraries, etc, etc...

Re:Notice its C++ and not Objective-C

[mrsbrisby]

Its a shame that most of the new OS X dev work is done using Objective-C and not C++.

I don't know that it would be a shame.

Certainly, if C++ were the language of choice for Cocoa, it might make C++ users feel more encouraged to target Cocoa, but it wouldn't actually help them write code for Cocoa.

The C++ interfaces for different display and widget systems are as different as the systems themselves- QT uses a "moc" C++ compiler that isn't even really C++ for signals and slots support- but encourages programmers to avoid tampering with the event loop, while Win32 encourages direct access with it.

So maybe if "Cocoa++" were around, it might help QT programmers (as the "moc C++" was designed to add features that Objective-C has, but that C++ didn't (and still doesn't well...)), but it certainly wouldn't help Win32 programmers in the slightest- except in "feeling" like all they've got to learn is a new API instead of a new language.

However, it may be better to point out that unlike the vast gap between C and C++ that makes them so distinctly different languages, Objective-C is a strict superset of C, in the sense that all C code is also Objective-C code. Apple also provides Objective-C++ which is a strict superset of C++, in the sense that all C++ code is also Objective-C++ code.

Now, most proficient programmers have no problem picking up a new language in a matter of hours; and Objective-C is so completely straightforward that just diving in is bound to validate that.

However, there are less-proficient programmers, and they tend to produce, sub-standard quality software. Given how much Cocoa software is of such high quality, it does beg the question: Is it the lack of poor programmers working in Objective-C, or is it that Objective-C is just that wonderful to use?

Having a "Cocoa++" might answer that question definitively, but I simply cannot see how that would be a Good Thing.

Re:Notice its C++ and not Objective-C

[hunterx11]

I have yet to see Objective-C bindings for QT or GTK so for Linux it is a none starter.

GNUstep may not be anywhere nearly as mature as Qt or Gtk, but it's hardly a non-starter.