Wandazulu writes 'According to an announcement posted on the Carbon developer's mailing list, Metrowerks announced at AdHoc that the forthcoming release of CodeWarrior 10 will be. This isn't surprising given that Apple is transitioning to Intel chips and Metrowerks has exited the Intel market, but it's still the end of an era. CodeWarrior literally saved Apple's bacon during the transition to PowerPC in the early 1990s by shipping the first working set of developer tools for the new platform. And since then CodeWarrior has been the main toolkit for commercial development on the Mac (especially pre-Xcode).' SN now has their own in-house C++ compiler.

I loaded the sample program into Codewarrior and burnt it into my C32 processor and played with it a bit, big mistake. I found Codewarrior much more complicated harder to use then GNU and now I can't get my old GNU S19 files to run after loading with NOICE. I'm sure it has to to with the reset vector and Corewarrior wiping out the serial monitor.

Uptake for the PS2 has been pretty slow because it came so late in the product cycle and is taking a while to mature; however I believe that SNC is the primary compiler for PSP, and after the Sony acquisition I can imagine it will become the standard PS3 compiler (although GCC probably has better support for PPC than MIPS, so it might be harder for SN to make their compiler competitive). Revolution will probably be stuck with Codewarrior (bleah), unless someone e. 83% of Mac developers use XCode primarily 74% of commercial Mac developers use XCode primarily. This is FUD, and that's the reason the parent poster was AC--ugh!

If you read the xcode apple maillist or develop mac os software for large scale apps, you'd know the figures are actually around the opposite. The truth of the matter is that the latest version of Xcode, 2.1, still has *major* potholes for any medium sized or larger projects. A simple read through the last few weeks of the xcode users apple maillist will reveal this--CodeWarrior users are furious since they're effectively being told that they need to use Xcode (b/c of the intel switch) while Xcode is a far cry from being able to swallow medium (or larger) projects (I myself am in this situation). Xcode 2.2 promises to stop of the bleeding, but even one of the apple xcode devs said point blank that many of the UI inadequacies won't be addressed until the 'next major release' (meaning Xcode 3! -- how far is *that* off?). And then there's GCC 4.0 being broken for certain things.

Sure, this has nothing to do with Xcode, but it's more reason CW people like myself are still totally turned off from making the switch. Anyway, what's more scary is the wacko who posted the parent comment--to just blatantly make up weird shit like that--wtf. Apple does manage to use XCode for OS X, yes? And certainly all the iApps. What about the pro apps like Shake, Motion, Final Cut, ProTools -- are those on XCode?

Apple uses Xcode, yes, but many of the large 'commercial' apps the original post was referring use carbon. It's highly speculated that at the last WWDC, the purpose of all the rah-rah-rah of Xcode and all the speakers telling us how great it is to move to Xcode was to get the mountain of codewarrior users was to get us switch to Xcode. Zimbra desktop free. I do not see an incosistency between the orginal post's '83% of Mac developers use XCode primarily. 74% of commercial Mac developers use XCode primarily.' And your 'Xcode, 2.1, still has *major* potholes for any medium sized or larger projects.' Small projects will outnumber medium and large.