So why bother with AppCode, when Xcode is free? It is certainly not essential, but my view is that tools which save time or improve quality are worth the investment. This is a disorientating at first, but in practice I found it convenient to be able to switch between the two IDEs. This is particularly important if you want to use Interface Builder, the Xcode visual designer, since AppCode has no equivalent. An AppCode project is also an Xcode project. The Apple SDKs are delivered with Xcode, and AppCode requires it. ![]() One thing I discovered immediately is that AppCode is not a replacement for Xcode, the official Apple IDE. Installation was a snap, as Mac users expect. AppCode is itself a Java application, but unless you have a religious objection to this I doubt you will find it a problem: I found it perfectly snappy and responsive on my machine, a 2.3 Ghz Core i5 with 8GB RAM. The company is best known for its IntelliJ IDE for Java, and AppCode essentially takes the same core IDE and reworks it for Objective C. You probably don't code enough to actually have an opinion that matters much anyway.I have been trying out JetBrains AppCode, a new IDE for Apple’s Objective C. Instead of whining about pixel perfection, try taking a look at the things it does and the audience it targets. That is one trivial example of a time saver that AppCode offers. In Xcode you have to go to the end of the line and hit enter. Simple things like not being able to have the cursor in the middle of a line and be able to simply add a line under the current line (vi lovers: think 'o' from the middle of a line). I feel like Xcode just gets in the way many times. I like things that increase my velocity (in my case over 50%). I don't care about how pretty my application is when I'm getting the job done. We have a saying at my office: 'If you can't code, it's likely that you care about pixel perfection.' I care about getting stuff done. It's written by developers for developers. AppCode doesn't tout itself as a beautiful Mac application. I find it interesting that so many folks whine about how an application looks instead of how much it helps you do your job. ![]() If you disagree with JetBrains' choice, then this is not the app for you, and that's OK. My point is just that which set of problems you'd rather have is a matter of personal preference. So yeah, if AppCode were Cocoa, it wouldn't have all the UI problems it does now. TextMate has always been Cocoa, but early releases were missing a lot of standard features because so much of the UI was custom code (as the standard Cocoa controls did not offer the functionality TextMate wanted). ![]() It's still worse than Xcode 3 in terms of stability and responsiveness on average hardware. The initial release of Xcode 4 was so broken that a lot of people downgraded after trying it for a week. But there are a lot of ways Cocoa apps can be broken and user-hostile too. It's true that not using Cocoa does hurt the product. Cocoa doesn't have anything particularly helpful to IDEs that would offset the cost of rewriting, so if they had gone with a total rewrite in Objective-C, it seems most likely that they would either not have anything shipping or they would have a pretty but half-baked product (or both). JetBrains' tradeoff may not align with your preference here, but the simple fact is, they now have a highly capable IDE shipping for OS X. But I also understand the benefits offered by JetBrains' existing IDE codebase. ![]() I've been a Mac user since 1985, Cocoa programmer since 2001, got the gold badge on Stack Overflow - believe me, I get it. It was rgbrgb who brought up native GUI elements as the big reason for going Cocoa - I was just replying to his/her comment.Īnyway, like I told frou_dh, I do understand the benefits Cocoa offers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |