Metrowerks Putting Linux on Hold 276
yamla writes "Metrowerks, developer of the CodeWarrior development tools, has decided to put their professional Linux tools on hold. Since being bought out by Motorola, they've changed product emphasis and although their Linux guy in R&D wants to go ahead, management has put the product on indefinite hold. I want to develop using CodeWarrior 5 for Linux but apparently, this program may now never see the light of day. " I've talked with some folks over at Metrowerks and have confirmed this - from what they've said, the earliest it would be out is next Fall. Click below to read their account - and remember that it's better to sign the various petitions around than it is to flame people.
We currently have our plans for the Professional Linux on hold. Our head Linux guy in R&D wants to develop the product, but management has the project on hold. We have had some product changes since Motorola bought us out. You can keep checking the website for any news on the product, but the earliest it could possibly be release would be next Fall.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Metrowerks
Re:those bastards (Score:1)
This isn't a flame, but it's been on my mind... (Score:1)
I'm not going to be holding any company's hand anymore. You either keep up with the pack, or die. Furthermore, I'm not very impressed with Codewarrior's interface, I've used several versions of Codewarrior. Their Codewarrior for the Pilot product was enough to keep me away from the pilot until I found GCC.
It is my opinion that Metrowerks' glory days are over. Me? I'll stick with my IDE:
- 1 xterm with vi
- 1 xterm to compile with gcc
- 1 xterm to test the app in
Total cost: $0
If companies don't want to support Linux, then it's their own limbs they're cutting off
philth, the UNIX/UNIX-like OS bigot
The Unix versions of CW are not native,... (Score:1)
What's the point? Well, I think the community is better off without such a hack. Dont get me wrong, CW is a superior product,...on the Mac. The Windows version is cute, but it fails to integrate with the Windows environment, because of its Mac bias. The same goes for the Linux version.
What benefits the KDE/GNOME developer community is the availability of IDEs that integrate well with their respective GUI environment and the platform that they run on. Development tools should cater to their target platform. Fortunately more and more of these tools are starting to appear.
Re:Good thing (Score:1)
Frankly, a bit more standardization would be nice in Linux, at least in what applications default behavior is...
Whoa! (Score:1)
I've been a "C" programmer for over 20 years, and I still get a kick out of writing software that actually works well. However, if I invent a good piece of software, I think I should get paid for the idea's realization, which is in the software that one uses. It's no different than inventing a better corkscrew, I invented it, I produced it, I should get paid for the product. Now if the price is too high then, the laws of supply and demand naturally occur, unless monopolilistic practices are used. Bottom line: I work, I need to live and in order to do that I need to receive money.
So Motorola looks for a certain profit margin, and if that profit margin isn't there, then either raise prices and/or lower costs, or kill the product. I'm sure the analysis of CodeWarrior and it's market in Linux revealed they couldn't raise prices, because this "idea" of "free" software rules the Linux application market, because Linux is "free". So the only alternative is to kill the product.
Software should be of high quality and reasonable cost, not free. If you want to blame anyone, then blame Metrowerks for going public in the first place and then allowing themselves to get purchased by Motorola. (I will admit $95 million was cheap)
I think the Linux community, of which I count myself, is doing a great diservice by perpetuating the notion that a vendor must give away their product for free, if it runs on Linux. While we in the Linux community know this is not true, the average software vendor doesn't really know that. In part to FUD by Microsoft, but also in part that the general perception that Linux folks are real weirdos. Albeit, I'm fairly strange, I try to maintain a fair amount of decorum around the non-initiated. And I'm one of the teeming masses of nobodies in the world, so I count for very little anyaway, so be cool and be balanced, and cut back on the caffiene.
Cy ;->
Same stunt that they pulled with QNX (Score:2)
QNX announced that they were moving from the WATCOM compiler to Metrowerks, and simultaneously announced support for multiple processors for QNX (which has always been an x86-only processor). A few weeks later, they had to retract all their announcements, apparently because Metrowerks had decided instead to support RedHat Linux, and not waste their time on QNX. A win for Linux, but in my book, decidely bad form. I'm sure it made the QNX folks' blood boil, as well. QNX ended up having to 'make up' to the WATCOM folks, who were teed off at the QNX announcement in the first place. What a mess.
And, as you can see, the fickle Metrowerks management is at it again, pulling the rug out from under the Linux crowd, and chasing after another platform.
And Motorola plays into this in even stranger ways. They have just partnered with the Lynx OS fellows, to be the reference platform for Lynx' BlueCat embedded Linux release, which is, as far as I can tell is still just a gleam in the Lynx folks' eyes. Even though they claim to be committed to open source and all that jazz, they plan on keeping all the add-on goodies (like backplane TCP/IP) to themselves, reasoning that they can make money off of the license fees. Oh woe, that any company thinks that they can bundle like that and get away with it. Another fantasy is that Lynx doesn't believe that sales of BlueCat will kill their cash cow, the Lynx RTOS, which is closed-source and pricey. It won't take two nickels to rub together for someone to decide to add the RT-Linux patches into the BlueCat sources, and thus do away with any dependency on Lynx OS as a real-time platform (along with the binary license fees).
On the plus side, they have decided to put a strong support and consulting organization in place for BlueCat that mirrors the one they have for Lynx (24x7 worldwide hand holding and all that jazz), so hopefully, they will figure out that they need to make their bucks there, and quite experimenting with what they can get away with, with GPL'ed software.
Now, here is the Motorola/Metrowerks/ Lynx link -- Lynx has announced that they intend to ship a sexy, cross-platform IDE (no screenshots yet) that runs on RedHat and targets BlueCat, and later, Lynx OS.
Hmm. You don't suppose that that's what's got Metrowerks bouncing from one platform to another like a moth around a lightbulb, do you? Hmmm?
Re:This shows a weak spot the Open Source model. (Score:1)
If you would use your "refresh" button on your browser and read some other posts, you would've get your answer..
Metroworks pulled this trick before, and it wasn't related (last time) to Linux OS at all. They got a shit management there. period.
Re:YARNTDOCSP (Score:2)
I mean, if you like Code Warrior, then you're obviously unhappy that they've dropped linux support. But it certainly shouldn't destroy your project!
That's why we can't trust proprietary software (Score:1)
Only Free Software can garantee Freedom.
Did Code Fusion kill Codewarrior? (Score:3)
So instead of worrying too much about this (admittedly heavy) loss, look forward to new tools, and try one of the other ones!
Re:Were any of you actually going to buy it? (Score:1)
--
Oh please, you're just another elitest zealot, I suppose that you also think that every linux user got the Quake 3 Linux warez instead of the legit version as well, since we "don't pay for software".
Codewarrior is one of the most successful pieces of software for linux so if you think that 'none of us were going to plonk down cash for it' then you are either ill-informed or un-informed.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Re:those bastards (Score:1)
You might consider yourself better off merely because you have choices that you don't want to exercise anyway, however given than Metrowerks are actually investing their time and money in this, they need to also be "better off".
If they've decided that their strategy lies in another direction, it will be for sound reasons. An attempt by the linux community to sway them by any other means than a business case is unacceptable.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1)
Oh right, I should use Emacs then.
smell something? (Score:1)
(Bill Walker is the evil son of Satan at Motorola who has decreed that all desktop machines containing PowerPC processors (manufactured by Motorola), be eliminated and replaced with Dell machines, runnin NT, of course.)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Why motorola? (Score:1)
"Gee, Steve, I'm really sorry to hear you're not happy with the latest batch of PPC chips - you wouldn't be planning on making any public statements to that effect would you? I mean, you've got a really nice development environment here, "Code Warrior". It'd be a REAL shame if anything happened to it. .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:FYI apple uses gcc (Score:1)
Score: 5, Informative!
I, being a closet Macophile, didn't even realize this. I thought Metrowerks was Apple's premier development tool for OS X. Serves me right for reading press releases.
This explains a lot.
And I'm SURE it wasn't "Apple" per se who dissed Metrowerks. I'm betting it was the dreaded NeXT Nazis within Apple. Who themselves got dissed when Objective-C was dropped as the primary language for Yellow Box in favor of (yeeuch!) Java. After that maneuver, I thought that the NeXT faction had been silenced.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Moto and Apple (Score:1)
divisions are phasing out Macintosh support in favor of a common platform that is basically a Dell with all Microsoft software.
Is this product necessary? (Score:2)
With all the recent publicity about Linux moving onto everything from the palm-top to the mainframe, many corporate execs and managers will likely be edgy about buying anything from Metrowerks. It's not good to buy from companies you can't rely on for support, and companies that are perceived as dead in the water are perceived as unreliable.
On the flip-side, it doesn't do Linux any good, either. Fewer products means less shelf-space, means less mind-share. Again, in the minds of those corporate execs, no mindshare, no use. Linux has to be seen to be believed, all too literally. If theatres are about bums on seats, then software is about seats on shelves.
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:1)
Honestly, aren't all of you tired of re-learning to use your IDEs every time that some guy in Sales decides that it's time for a new version. I don't even have to change editors when I switch languages. Python, Java, C, C++, Tcl, Scheme, Pascal, you name it Emacs will eat it for breakfast. In fact, it probably has a mode for whatever type of text editting that you are interested in.
The same is true (of course) for vi.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with the free tools that are available for Linux, and once you learn to use them you will probably wonder what in the heck you were doing paying for your old tools every six months.
There are almost certainly areas where it makes sense to purchase commercial software for Linux, but development tools really isn't one of these areas.
What Codewarrior for Linux should have been (Score:2)
I still use it with Windows; however the linux port did not interest me for long because the browser was broken; the advanced C++ library was gone, and because it proved to be a real hassle to import code. It struck me as a GUI welded onto gcc-- which it was.
Many open source projects support configure/autoconf/autoheader/automake. I was unable to use these common tools with CW. I would have liked a system that translated between Codewarrior projects and these more common cross platform formats.
Re:It's Mac OS X's fault, maybe (Score:1)
An infinitely more likely scenario is that Motorola who now owns Metrowerks didn't see any financial incentive to pursuing a Linux IDE. Motorola bought Metrowerks mostly because of their compilers for the embedded market, something that Motorola dominates. A secondary reason would be their PowerPC support but the MacOS market is small compared to their embedded market. The number of Linux users who would actually purchase the IDE is probably insignificant compared to even the MacOS market.
I might have... (Score:2)
To be sure, I use Code Crusader for my home projects- it's free and gives me all I need.
I don't blame them for backing down- but I'm awfully glad that CompUSA didn't have the Red Hat version of CodeWarrior. I have problems with vendors that won't pursue the next version on my selected platform. It makes me want to buy their stuff a lot less.
CodeFusion NOT Open Source... (Score:2)
So? (Score:3)
Only in the Mac community and to a lesser extent in the Windows community. And, there is one free alternative and one no-so-free alternative that stand out as being usable and as good as (or better than- depending on how you view it...) CodeWarrior.
Code Crusader [newplanetsoftware.com] is the freebie and is a best of breed IDE and is what I've been using for some of my work projects and all of my at home projects. It's worth a look-see.
CodeFusion [cygnus.com], from Red Hat, is the other one. It's a little clumsy to use at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's also a great alternative to CodeWarrior. (It's what we're using for our stuff at work now- we're needing cross-platform...
"However, I think that having CodeWarrior available for Linux would help entice developers coming from the Windows/Mac world."
Actually, we've got a lot there with the other two- if MetroWerks/Motorola aren't interested in us, it's their loss.
More room for Absoft? (Score:2)
CodeWarrier for Palm under Linux? (Score:2)
I can't think why it would be more difficult to port a cross-development system to Linux than a native development system. Any ideas?
On hold, people! (Score:1)
Reminds me of the shoe commercial where a US Women's Soccer Team member is getting a physical. The doctor gives her the tap-on-the-knee reflex test, and she kicks him across the room hard enough to bounce him high off the far wall. Kinda like the kneejerk reactions to bad Linux news around here.
Take a deep breath, and let the caffeine work through your system a little before declaring Motorola the new Evil Empire.
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
uh... 'scuse me being dense... (Score:1)
Bummer (Score:1)
I wouldn't mind giving it a try, but I'd imagine there is someone out there that this would be the killer app for them to switch to Linux.
It's a shame to see management sitting on a good project, and one that I could see them making money on. It seems to never fail when a PHB gets involved with stuff they know or understand.
KDevelop, Codewarrior GNU edition, et. al... (Score:3)
The GNU Tools edition of Code Warrior was missing all the things that made me want the Pro version for my shop: it had no SCM integration, no other team development features, it was only for C/C++, and it had no form painter. Among other things.
Without at least some SCM integration (say, with CVS, PVCS and MKS for a start), what development shop is going to bother? Sure, it's an easy transition from Windows or Mac Codewarrior, but what good is it without most of the things that make a professional IDE so good?
Right now, as far as C++ tools go on Linux, KDevelop's actually ahead in some key areas. It's got a (Qt) form painter, CVS integration, auto-completion and very good integration not only with the old core GNU tools but also with modern things like autoconf.
But there's still a market ripe and hungry for professional-level tools on Linux. professiona; developers are one group that's already adopting Linux on the desktop. They're often not locked in by a need to use MS Office heavily, and are plenty happy to run development tools on a stable, sturdy platform. IBM gets it. Borland gets it. And Metrowerks shouldn't be so afraid of Cygnus. Cygnus makes swell compilers and specialized tools, among other things, but they're not about to make general-purpose IDE vendors lose much sleep.
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:1)
I've been on many projects where it was impossible to read the makefiles, and nearly impossible to do a clean build. The problem was that some whiz kid decided to set up global makefiles all over the place, with implicit rules to handle illogical commands and directory structures. When you went to read a makefile, you first needed to be intimately familiar with 5 other included makefiles, all of which were 500 lines long, as well as the total directory structure of the project. Stupidity!
Makefiles are a breeze to use IF you:
1) don't include any global makefile crap
2) don't hide implicit build rules in a file included in a file included in another file included in yet another file included in still yet another file, which is finally included in your makefile, unless of course that sneaky user defined local makefile configuration wasn't abused by the user to deactivate the build rule defined above... yes, I've seen it.
3) put ONE makefile in a directory and have that makefile build either a program or a library. This makes it super simple and super understandable to build either an entire program or just a small part of it
4) make sure you've put the right targets in your makefile - make all, make clean, make doc, make install, make depend. The make depend is a snap because the gcc compiler will build your dependencies for you!
5) don't get tricky with the defines either. Your program should build the same no matter what your
If you do all these things and aim for makefile simplicity, then makefiles are the A-number-one best way to build a project. IDE's are a distant second.
so write your own IDE (Score:1)
oh wait, someone named rms already did that w/ that five-letter program...
Good Riddance (Score:1)
How well did Code Warrior: GNU version sell? (Score:2)
I wonder how well Code Warrior GNU version sold. If it didn't do well, then perhaps that also influenced their descision to delay the full Linux version. The market for IDEs also got crowded very quickly, with several other products. That might have made sales less than they expected.
I did beta testing for Code Warrior, and while I thought some people might like it (if you use an IDE), it didn't seem to offer enough for me. What I really wanted to see, and why I joined the beta, was the metroworks compiler. I could use that outside of the IDE if I wanted.
I hope they change their mind, and release the full product. I think the tools are useful to a lot of developers. I think their full product would differentiate them from the rest of the pack and that should help sales.
- |Daryll
Re:FYI apple uses gcc (Score:1)
I'm sure they consider Metroworks very important for Carbon projects, but the momentum is clear -- new projects should be Cocoa, which means Objective C or Java which means not Metrowerks.
From Apple's point of view, it frees them from yet another Third Party Developer that can crap all over whatever their strategy is. When Symantac started cutting back on Mac development, things got shaky. Having Code Warrior appear was pure luck for Apple, and I don't think they want to go through that again. (As another reference, there's a
--
It's all the same - only the name has changed (Score:3)
You know, this type of attitude really ticks me off.
I'm a decent programmer, but I'm not a compiler writer, or a kernel hacker, or a device driver guru. I have no doubt that if I absolutely had to, I could modify gcc, the kernel, or some device driver to fix a bug or add a minor feature. But you know what? Instead of spending thousands of hours building the tools I need to work with, I rely on someone else to write my compiler, my editor, my device drivers, my filesystems, and the kernel that runs 'em all.
My point? You can apply this description to both proprietary and OSS software; and in both cases, if the folks who are writing your software (Metrowerks, MS, the Apache Group, etc.) decide to stop working on a project/feature/enhancement you were waiting for, you're SOL. In both cases, you have the same choices - buy a replacement product; build your own replacement product; or hire someone to build you a replacement product. The only real advantage the OSS case has is that you have access to the source code, which means that it will be less expensive (although not neccesarily inexpensive) to choose either of the development options.
Tools like CodeWarrior threaten the soul of Linux (Score:2)
My problem with the Windows/Macintosh approach to computing is that it is based around GUI tools. And because everything is done with GUI tools, there is no pressure to make it accessible programmatically and through plain text files.
If Linux/UNIX starts relying heavily on GUI tools as well, it will follow the same path, because the pressure to keep things simple and logical from a command line perspective will have been removed. In fact, there are already beginnings of that in various parts of Linux, where rather than designing a logical and simple textual configuration system, programs increasingly rely on graphical tools.
CodeWarrior is a fairly benign representative of the Windows/Macintosh approach to programming. Still, why should dpeople moving to Linux not use Emacs? And if they really want to use something like CodeWarrior, why not use at least an open source system instead?
From my point of view, it may actually be a good thing that CodeWarrior isn't coming to Linux. But, of course, your preferences for what Linux is to become may differ.
and? (Score:2)
There's still large factions that say that the CLI is superior to the GUI.
There are hundreds of free alternative to Code Warrior.
It seems understandable for a company to doubt how much impact their product will have on a hugely saturated market.
Don't care.. kinda glad actually. (Score:1)
Because we ALREADY have to target multiple environments right now.. I can't even imagine having a new compiler on the block. Nightmare, IMHO.
So, go ahead and get Metroworks if you can.. but I hope they spend the time to "fit" into the linux model.. (comparable switches... command line compiler, etc.). If not, then they won't get my business.
Pan
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:1)
You are free to select whatever tools you want, for whatever political, economic, or personal reasons you have. But my choice is based squarely on issues of reliability, economy, performance, and the precise needs of our business. To make our choice for us is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?
I made no political, economic, or personal argument. Would it be wrong if I did? It sounds like that's what YOU were doing to me. "Professional programers BUY their tools.", "Company's don't care about free software." "Metrolink is a better solution than gcc", were your arguments, respectivly to political, economic, and personal arguments.
Your rhetoric is trying to equate your personal preference as technically superior. I just don't think you know the difference between technical issues and personal preferences.
Maybe if you were to apply some of you 20 years of "what works and what doesn't" in the form of hand to keyboard, you could help develop tools that fit your preferences. We could use a better IDE for Linux.
Pan
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:5)
Okay, I'll let you argue your point. How about this... GCC is targeted at over a 30 microprocessors.
Can run under
Not that I don't mean to say that your prefered environment isn't FANTASTIC.. but it is certainly not the best cross platform(if judged by this merit alone) tool available. I too would like to see a better interface developed for GNU.. but it's not there yet.
Also, don't you even TRY and argue that you are more a more professional developer because you bought your tools. The software and web-sites I have single-handedly designed and wrote over the past 5 years has brought on over 150 Million dollars of revenue a year. And yeah.. I still prefer perl, gnu c, and make.
And you comment about managing "large complicated projects" doesn't even push wind. Please.. someone do a wc -l on
I would argue that our "antiquated" tools are MUCH better designed for large, complicated, and geographically devided development teams. It just doesn't hold water to compare them. Good tools fit the developer, not the other way around. Good tools can use command line AND gui environments well. I havn't use Metrolink in 3 years.. but it wasn't there yet.
Besides, it makes you look like a ranting asshole. If you have a preference for the Metrolink development environment - then that's A-OK. Enjoy it. But why the need to take cheap pot-shots at the rest of us?
Pan
I wanted it for the Java! (Score:1)
I wish they would have a downloadable demo version of CodeWarrior too, I'd like to play with the GUI and editor a little to see if I like it.
embedded market (Score:1)
There is not even a version for Linux PPC. Just sounds like the engineer who championed it, lost his management champion. eg someone left after the sale.
Re:SIGN THE PETITION (Score:1)
Re:Why motorola? (Score:1)
But the lion's genes have a pretty good reason for programming their lion to do that; it's not just for the sake of changing things. The managers probably have a reason for this too, it's just that it might not make a lot of moral sense, especially to us outsiders.
BTW, city slicker, it's interesting that you wrote "like a nature show" instead of "like nature". I guess lions aren't a part of your day-to-day reality -- to you, they're just a media creation like Brittney Spears, huh? Well, I recommend you get a pet cat and pretend he a big fercious lion. s/meow/ROAR/ It'll be good for you. It's been good for me.
---
Management is Smoking Crack (Score:1)
Re:Metrowerks *IS* addressing customer needs (Score:1)
Re:Did Code Fusion kill Codewarrior? (Score:1)
OTOH, KDevelop is getting good reviews, even if it is specific to the Qt library. And I find Glade to be generally more hopeful. (Less tied to a restricted environment... OpenGL is LOTS of places, and gtk is expanding to the Winxx OS. I don't know about the Mac or BeOS.)
I don't know JX Builder, but have read some good reviews.
If they don't come now, they'll have more problems later. And there will be less need for them.
This doesn't suprise me a bit! (Score:2)
Our motorola dispatch consoles are stuck with NT that have to be rebooted about once a week (these are the computers that do ambulance,swat, fire paging). Our Linux consoles (that run several apps) have yet to fail in over a year. When I complained about this they said they will ONLY stick with NT.
I am very disapointed in Motorola.
Sherm
This is changeable (Score:2)
Managers understand complaints - intelligent and polite complaints. So if you care about Codewarrior, then do call them and write polite letters. If you're depending on their product like one writer already told, then go and set up a meeting with one of their top managers.
They are writing on their home page [metrowerks.com]:
If you still have questions, feel free to ask. You can email us at info@metrowerks.com or give us a call at 1-512-873-4700
Why don't you just do it and keep on doing it. Signing some driver petitions doesn't help but it sure is better than flaming.
Re:YARNTDOCSP (Score:1)
I think that we are talking about slightly different issues: you present a project that was once developed on one platform, then it was ported to other platforms. I suppose that you still add some features and bug fixes afterwards, but I assume that you do not re-structure large parts of the project regularly. I mentioned a project in which most of the code is being actively developed for all platforms at the same time, and there are some major changes done in the cross-platform code. When you have many platforms to support, including their variants (e.g. Windows CE for MIPS processor is not the same as Windows CE for SH3), then you have to be sure that any new source file added, deleted or renamed in the cross-platform libraries is correctly updated in all Makefiles (or whatever build system you are using).
In my project, we solved that problem by using included Makefiles that are shared by several platform-specific Makefiles, which allows the various builds to use the same source files even if each platform uses a different compiler and different settings. Another poster described a very similar solution. But even that is not always easy to manage, especially with several hundred source files in many different directories. If I break something, then it does not take long until a colleague complains that the version for this or that platform does not build anymore (or at the latest, the nightly build will send me a message about it).
The original poster in this thread said that he likes CodeWarrior because it is easier for him to manage his build system. If he is used to it and if that works well, then why not? I think that for large projects, some IDEs may be better than Makefiles if your applications contain a lot of stuff that is not pure code (i.e. icons, bitmaps, pre-made dialogs, hotkeys, etc.) and if that stuff must be available in more than one language. Some IDEs are quite good at handling all this "extra stuff" and I suppose that this is one of the reasons why he said that he relies on CodeWarrior.
Note that I am not the same person as the one who complained about the lack of CodeWarrior for Linux. In fact, I have never used CodeWarrior in any real project (and it is unlikely that I ever will, because I am quite experienced in writing good Makefiles). I was simply trying to explain that Open Source tools are not always available for developing software, especially on non-UN*X platforms, and this is why some companies rely on closed source IDEs.
Re:YARNTDOCSP (Score:3)
Open Source software is not always an option if you are writing cross-platform code: most Open Source development tools are available for Linux and various flavours of UN*X, but not for MacOS, Windows 95/98/NT/2K, Windows CE (a totally different beast), EPOC, PalmOS and so on. If you start with a product that was developed on the Mac and you want to port it to Linux, chances are that the product was relying on CodeWarrior, because CodeWarrior is one of the best integrated environments available on the Mac and there is no Open Source equivalent that comes close. If CodeWarrior is not available for Linux, then it will be harder to convert this product.
I am sure that many companies would not mind using Open Source tools, be it only for being sure that they have their future in their hands. But this is not always possible. And many companies do not have the resources (time and money) to invest in porting the best Open Source tools to their target platforms before starting to develop their products. They just have to live with the closed source IDEs, and hope that their suppliers will support their target platforms in the future.
At work, I am developing some software that is ported to Linux, Solaris, Windows 95/98/NT, Windows CE, EPOC, and maybe a few others soon. We decided to use Makefiles (handwritten or generated) for most of our build system, and to rely on included Makefiles (with nested includes) for making it easier to maintain the global settings and so on. Still, this can be a pain to maintain when you have dozens or hundreds of directories with their own Makefiles. I think that we made the right decision because Makefiles are future-proof and we have more control over what is going on in your build system. But we have to pay the price for that, and it is counted in extra hours when some significant change has to be applied to the build system.
Many companies prefer to set up their build system around some tools such as CodeWarrior, which are supposed to make it much easier to manage large projects. I don't blame them for that, because this is probably what gives them the best benefits compared to the set-up and maintenance costs in the short- or medium-term, especially for (very) large projects. If you have the opportunity to even think about the long term (not always an option when you have to get a product out of the door in the next few weeks), then I would always recommend using a system that does not rely on closed source products, such as Makefiles.
You can make your life easier under UN*X by using autoconf, automake and various other goodies for generating your Makefiles automatically, but these tools do not exist (yet) for Windows or for the Mac. And the cross-compilers are not always an option either. I'm still dreaming of a system that would allow me to have only one Makefile for compiling my code with the correct options under any system (or at least UN*X, Windows and MacOS)...
Re:and? (Score:1)
And it's not just for Linux, either. It's for the BSD's, and for free software in general. In short, we all win.
So go sign the bleeding petition [libranet.com] alreddie.
--
"I wanna find your inner child / and kick its little ass!" -- Don Henley, "Get Over It!"
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:1)
Re:uh... 'scuse me being dense... (Score:1)
The main feature of CodeWarrior isn't the pretty IDE, it's the portable C++ GUI framework, PowerPlant. With PowerPlant you can write a single set of source code and recompile for any supported platform: MacOS, BeOS, Windows95/98/NT/etc, or X Windows. [X]Emacs doesn't do anything to address this, nor do most other IDEs, nor do any of the companies providing assorted compilers for different platforms.
Another feature of CodeWarrior, that was still in beta last time I owned a license on MacOS, was a Java compiler that produced binary executables instead of byte-code class files. While this may seem to defeat the primary purpose of Java (compile once, run anywhere) it produces much faster Java programs on the supported platforms.
I lost interest a year ago (Score:2)
Having an X version of PowerPlant would have been a big help, as would have been the ability to code in Java and compile straight to binary executables (something that could be done under CodeWarrior for MacOS)
These days, however, I'm doing pretty much all my coding for *nix/X Windows. With MacOS migrating to a Mach/BSD base I don't feel any need to write old-style MacOS versions of my code, and I figure that anyone using Windows can fend for themselves.
I think that CodeWarrior just missed their window of opportunity. A year or so ago there was a real need for good cross platform development tools. Now that it looks like the whole world will be running *nix in a few years, however, I don't think there is nearly as much interest (or need) for such things.
Re:It's Mac OS X's fault, maybe (Score:1)
Re:cheap (Score:1)
Professional Developers.
What do they do?
BUY their deveolpment tools.
Have no doubt, this is their market, and people will buy if there is a need. That remains to be seen with Makefiles and autoconfigure scripts.
Why Software Should Not Have Owners. (Score:2)
When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:1)
light of day on Linux because the cost will be too high to retrofit them into the text-only Makefile nightmare that
is g++. THAT should be a reason for Linux users to complain -- Metrowerks' decision to cancel this product
deprives you of software that otherwise will never be ported from Windows or the Mac because Linux doesn't
have the rich set of IDE-based tools that modern developers rely on to deliver code in a cost-effective manner.
Please don't consider the previous statement flame bait. It's not. It's a cold, hard fact about managing large,
complicated development tasks. There are better ways to do it now in the 21st century than using a directory full
of text files glued together with a batch-oriented makefile. Metrowerks has what is arguably one of the best
cross-platform environments for doing this and now you'll never see it (or the software that would have been
ported with it) because Metrowerks has reneged on a long-standing promise. Boo!
While I'm not a big fan of IDEs, there are starting to be other commercial offerings. Check out IBM's Visual Age for Java [ibm.com]. Now that IBM's commiting to strongly support Linux, they may be willing to port Visual Age for C++ to Linux as well (if I were in charge there, I'd certainly see this as a Big opportunity)
Re:Guess this means Borland wins the IDE (Score:1)
For little scripts and the such I still use vi, or sometimes emacs (depends on my mood), but for big projects, I tend to use CodeForge. Just my $.02 :)
I don't get it (Score:2)
---
doesnt suprise me (Score:1)
I would start saying bye bye to codewarrior, but then again 3COM does buy a lot of those dragonball processors for their Palm platform. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.
SIGN THE PETITION (Score:3)
They're aiming for 2 million signatures, which is a bit high, but if a significant number of people actually take the time to sign this petition then there is a greater chance that hardware companies will take note. If you've ever written an inflamatory note about some hardware company not releasing drivers for Linux, this is your chance to cast your vote.
It only takes a minute and it won't hurt a bit.
Borlands C++ Builder 4 is RAD? (Score:1)
I am a Java programmer looking for a good stepping stone into the Linux C++ world.. Could Borlands C++ Builder be a good stepping stone?
those bastards (Score:2)
Seriously though, this is a bummer. Although i'm not a particularly big fan of the codewarrior interface, i think that the more choices for development environments we can get, the better off we are.
Re:Why motorola? (Score:2)
Re:smell something? (Score:2)
He wanted the windows to look uniform to passers-by on the street, 'looks professional'...
Same sort of idiocy that disrupted the test floow for a few days changing out all the lights because the tube white temperature was not uniform, so what!! was that supposed to improve yields??
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:1)
I'm not sure you've picked the best example. Did win2000 come in on time and on budget? Of course this doesn't mean that it's MS's choice of dev tools that are to blame ;-)
BTW I use Xemacs for all my development (works X-platform and X-language). What I think we could do with are tools which provide some of the back-end work provided by IDE's (E.g. syntax analysis, context sensitive completion, incremental compilation, etc.) through a well defined interface/protocol. Editors such as emacs/vi could link to these to provide services, and for those that want it graphical front ends, could provide the whole IDE experience. This would be much more flexible, and more in keeping with Unix/Linux philosophy, than the shove it all in one product, GUI and all, approach of commercial vendors products.
Broken Link (Score:4)
Fixed link here. [libranet.com]
Anthony
It's Mac OS X's fault, maybe (Score:5)
It will require significant resources to bring CodeWarrior to Mac OS X, so it's possible that Linux development had to be scaled back. Of course the fact that Mac OS X runs on PPC, while Linux is mostly used on x86 machines probably plays some part in this as well.
--
Re:those bastards (Score:1)
continually assessing our product strategy to best meet the needs of developers. As always, Metrowerks is committed to providing best-of-class
tools for multiple platforms."
Re:It's Mac OS X's fault, maybe (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Borlands C++ Builder 4 is RAD? (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Guess this means Borland wins the IDE (Score:1)
But just because C++ Builder is a great product doesn't mean that Borland is going to suddenly sweep Linux programmers off their feet. There are a number of good IDE's out there for Linux (including C++ Builder, I'm sure) and KDevelop happens to be one of them. Hey, I don't really care one way or the other... I use KWrite and Gnome-Terminal for most of my coding, so what does that tell you?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Guess this means Borland wins the IDE (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Guess this means Borland wins the IDE (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Metrowerks *IS* addressing customer needs (Score:5)
This is nonsense, of course. Any business that adopts a cavalier attitude towards its customers is dead, but doesn't know it. Unless a monopoly barrier to entry exists, the company will be devastated by its competition in due course.
The decision to focus limited resources in favor of an existing customer base over a potential new or expanded customer base is rational, and reflects due attention to, not neglect of, one's customers.
As Bork wrote, the truth is far more interesting. Market-based proprietary systems tend to be far more responsive to broad-based customer demands than does individual open-source work, precisely because there is no individual who is accountable to the marketplace. A company can justify expending significant resources because the spending of a dollar generates greater return.
For PRECISELY THIS REASON, however, open source can far more effectively serve minority, or orphaned market needs. Here, the minority customers do end up being unserved, because no one can justify building the larger infrastructure to build an entire application with the minority-needed feature, but the entity with the big shell is busy handling majority-market requirements. With open source, the infrastructure is there, and if it is effectively reusable, minority interests can be economically served if truly needed.
So, there is truth to both positions. However, to accuse Metrowerks of ignoring present non-customer and minority customer interests precisely when they are attending to majority customer interests with their limited resources is sophistry at best.
Re:FYI apple uses gcc (Score:1)
Open Source alternative (Score:1)
Guess this means Borland wins the IDE (Score:2)
Yeah, I could hand-code it or use the other tool sets, but let's get real here.
Re:Guess this means Borland wins the IDE (Score:2)
And, as others have said, you can always use GCC if prices like this scare you off.
Re:why would you BUY a programming tool for linux? (Score:1)
</sarcasm>
I agree that it is possible to create a cross-platform portability library to allow you to use a single platform for most of your development. This is the _Right_Thing_To_Do_(tm). This library, however, needs to be written and maintained. That means you need to build, test, and debug on all your target configurations before you can develop your application from your favorite desktop.
This isn't too bad assuming you're writing a middle-level application -- text based, mostly ANSI C stuff. Once you start into high-level you need to deal with the intricacies of particular window systems; you really have to deal with the actual target. The same holds at the very low-level (where I live). Just because I can cross-assemble ARM or PPC code on a x86 machine doesn't mean I'll get the calling convention right.
The reality of cross-platform software development isn't development, it's debugging. There's always something that runs on A but not on B, no matter how portable your code seems. When that happens, you have no choice but to fire up the debugger on B and figure it out. The harsh truth is most debuggers suck badly, and most of them are radically different.
What I'm really ranting about is the lack of good debugging tools. If debugging is neurosurgery; the debugger our scalpel. WinDbg is sharp but the blade breaks off a lot. Gdb is a 2-handed battle axe -- cuts well but it's not great for fine work. Most of the rest range from butter knives to plastic sporks to rubber mallets.
I don't really want an IDE. I'll put up with a dozen different compilers and various implementations of make. I just want a good debugging story with a powerful and extensible visual front end that handles assembler source and has useful conditional breakpoints; coupled with a remote back-end that runs on every CPU and OS.
That and flying pigs, honest politicians, and cold fusion.
Re:why would you BUY a programming tool for linux? (Score:2)
If you're developing for more than one target a consistent editor/compiler/debugger story is a huge win. I'd give up several important parts of my anatomy to have something like Microsoft's WinDbg debugger (the one that comes with the NT SDK) on all the platforms I have to deal with. Instead I'm stuck with a powerful winnt/x86 debugger, a couple of variants of gdb and dbx (moderately useful, no assembler source) and a handful of even stranger (barely useful) tools for other OS/CPU configurations.
Getting rid of the mental context switch between two or more toolsets is well worth 300 bucks. A powerful tool that works everywhere you work is priceless.
JX (Score:1)
Re:This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:3)
This is a non-argument. We have only two platforms to support currently (Win32, Mac) and would like to add Linux. That gcc is a Swiss Army Knife of command line options and back ends is irrelevant.
The ONLY relevant issue is that we have a staff of engineers that is familiar with a specific tool, namely CodeWarrior. We have development, QA, and release processes based on this tool. We also have a long standing relationship with the vendor, Metrowerks. That gcc or g++ exists and that some people find it an acceptable development environment in no way makes a compelling case for us abandoning a highly productive environment for one that is clearly an old-style way of doing business and not one our engineers are comfortable in.
So I reiterate my original statement. You probably won't see our products on Linux unless there is an easier, more productive tool set than what comes with a stock Linux install. 20 years of software development has taught me that choosing the right tool for the job is paramount. And gcc/g++ simply isn't the right tool for our job.
You are free to select whatever tools you want, for whatever political, economic, or personal reasons you have. But my choice is based squarely on issues of reliability, economy, performance, and the precise needs of our business. To make our choice for us is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?
This REALLY kinks our plans (Score:5)
SIGN PETITION VS. BUY PRODUCT (Score:2)
Which do you thinks Metrowerks management will notice more?
A. INCREASED existing Linux release sales. (POSITIVE CASH FLOW)
B. Names on a petition. (VERBAL OUTCRY)
C. Both VERBAL OUTCRY & POSITIVE CASH FLOW
D. none of the above.
Re:Why motorola? (Score:2)
It probably has nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with reallocating Metrowerks resources to meet the business needs of SPS.
this is a standard buyout action... (Score:4)
Metroworks is a tools company that was just bought by Motorola, a major international corporation that has a completely different way of working.
Anytime there is a buyout like this, the smaller company will go through a months long period of adjustment and resource re-allocation to be (for lack of a better word) assimilated. Becuase of these changes in company focus, there will be a number of products that are put on hold, especially smaller projects such as linux codewarrior.
Codewarrior will not killed off. It's one of the leading development environments for Mac's. Therefore Motorola has a vested interest in keeping it going becuase they make Apple's chips.
Once the realignment is complete, Metroworks will probably pick up the projects that were put on hold. If they had not recognized the value of linux tools, they would not have started the project in the first place.
Note that Motorola Computer Group was one of the first people to sign on for embedded linux. I would not be surprised if MCG has already started apply intra-corporate pressure to have the linux codewarrior project continued.
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Something for Motorola to consider (Score:3)
This will help them to go head-to-head with other processors to capture the hearts of Linux users. Can they use it to encourage us to buy their processors? They won't do it with bad optimization for other processors. That will just kill the Linux version of CodeWarrior. They'd have to find ways to make the switch appealing in a way that is cost-effective for them to implement and cost-effective for us to buy. Unfortunately, they would be jumping into a commoditized market, which generally cuts profit margins to the bone. Can anyone offer them suggestions?
Re:Official links anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Metrowerks *IS* addressing customer needs (Score:2)
YARNTDOCSP (Score:3)
I don't see the point of complaining. A cavaliar attitude towards customers is an inherent feature of closed source software. Even if you manage to get Metrowerks to reverse, what about the next closed source product you decide to depend on? You going to spend your life doing these kinds of battles?
Method in MOTO (apparent) madness? (Score:2)
Why motorola? (Score:2)
I just don't see what the buyout gives BigM and even if they were just on a technology hunt why bother changing a successful product lineup?
Does it ever seem like management type people change things just for the sake of changing them? Kind'a like a nature show where a new lion takes over the den and kills off all the cubs that aren't his own...
Re:and? (Score:2)
CodeWarrior is a superior IDE; Linux needs it (Score:4)
I routinely use MS DevStudio on Windows and CodeWarrior on the Mac, and there is just no comparison. DevStudio is quirky and frustrating, and their debugger is both unintuitive and limited. CodeWarrior is slick, clean, and fast, and the debugger is a joy to use. It's the little things, like dragging and dropping files into the project and having it do the right thing, or being able to click on a void * in the debugger and being able to instantly view it as an array of 100 doubles (or whatever else), that make it so much nicer. I've never found an environment with all of these features in the Unix world. Let's hope they change their minds and continue the CodeWarrior/Linux project.
Re:and? (Score:4)
People typeset amazingly beautiful documents before LaTeX came around, and people got from point A to point B before automobiles. This is no argument that we shouldn't embrace new technology.
There's still large factions that say that the CLI is superior to the GUI.
If you're doing kernel hacking or scientific programming, sure, why even boot into X when virtual terminals are so fast? For the rest of us, we need to develop applications that have user interfaces, and visual tools speed up this process immensely.
There are hundreds of free alternative to Code Warrior.
There are hundreds of web browsers, too, but most of them suck. CodeWarrior is robust, fast, and mature, and it has a large user base already.
It seems understandable for a company to doubt how much impact their product will have on a hugely saturated market.
Here I agree with you. Most current Linux users will not switch. However, I think that having CodeWarrior available for Linux would help entice developers coming from the Windows/Mac world.
why would you BUY a programming tool for linux? (Score:2)
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.