Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  Apple's High-Water Mark?
Subject:   Universal Binary is not a certification program
Date:   2006-03-30 10:27:12
From:   AdrienLamothe
Response to: Universal Binary is not a certification program

Quoting one of your earlier statements:


"Apple's Xcode development tools support building universal binaries. It's a build configuration option in the Xcode UI."


Your earlier assertion was that software developers can smoothly migrate to whatever new microprocessor Apple uses, simply by using Xcode. Do you still assert this?


QT also generates Mac OS X programs. Adobe has used QT in the past, to build Photoshop Album.


Using open-source tools does potentially mitigate risk. Even better is when you can code to open, established standards. Linux is a POSIX-compliant Unix operating system, that is both open-source and adheres to standards. This separates it from other operating systems, that appear to be open but are in fact only open to a certain degree. Lots of software developed for other Unix platforms will compile and run on Linux; this demonstrates the power of standards.


Of course, there are abstractions above the operating system, that are not official standards, so we end up developing to those de-facto standards. Today's de-facto standards can become tomorrow's official standards. So it is also good to avoid dogmatism and pragmatically utilize the best tools for the job. QT may be a candidate for future standardization, as may any new abstractions Apple can develop.


Cheers.


Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

  • Universal Binary is not a certification program
    2006-03-31 06:06:19  jdodds [View]

    Xcode is no magic bullet. It won't save you if you have written non-portable code. But Universal Binary can accommodate as many processor architectures as Apple needs and it's reasonable to assume that Xcode will continue to support Universal Binary.

    I'm not familiar with Qt but libraries like Qt generally need to make compromises to abstract away some of the differences between the UIs they support. If you are developing to multiple UI platforms the trade-off may be acceptable.

    But if you are writing a Mac OS X app for Mac OS X only I don't see value in writing to Qt over writing directly to Carbon/Cocoa.
    • Universal Binary is not a certification program
      2006-03-31 09:04:24  AdrienLamothe [View]

      Universal Binary will support a new processor architecture after Apple (or someone) develops the compiler for it. I believe Apple is using the GNU compiler for Core Duo. So, there is always work involved when supporting a new microprocessor. Speaking of GNU, it is amazing how we now live in a world where companies can deliver innovative products based on open-source technology. Ten years ago we couldn't have had this discussion.

      Apple made a smart move migrating to Core Duo, because they needed something new. I was surprised they didn't migrate to AMD, because Opteron is so good and is 64 bit. Core Duo is a better choice for notebook computers (a very important market segment.) The migration was also well timed from a marketing perspective. Apple has held on to public mind share because of constant product introduction (mostly iPods) the past couple of years. One of Steve Jobs' strengths is his initiative. Apple is proof that a smaller company with initiative can outperform larger competitors. Larger companies tend to be very risk averse and also slow to react due to the bureaucratic nature of their decision making processes. I believe Sony is in this category and is fighting hard to change.

      I believe QT does abstract away some differences. It actually doesn't have to, it is just a matter of how much effort goes into developing QT. Some software companies have the resources to develop their own custom QT widgets. I agree that developing to Carbon/Cocoa is the way to go if you are writing only for the Mac.


      • Universal Binary is not a certification program
        2006-03-31 10:15:59  jdodds [View]

        I agree with you that the choice of Intel over AMD was probably driven by notebooks.

        There was a recent article (can't remember where) that made a case that Apple doesn't act its age in the sense that it acts more like a startup than a 30 year old company.