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.


Main Topics Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • 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.