TR Forums

No doubt about it, Mac's and OS X are great development platforms.

http://9to5mac.com/2016/03/18/os-x-vers ... /?pushup=1

Mac's what? You used a possessive.

I'm probably going out on a limb here, but it's possible that 9to5mac.com has a slight bias. For instance, notice how they're only listing Windows 7 specifically, rather than all current versions of Windows.

I'd like to see all of Windows versus one specific version of OS X.

The Egg wrote:

I'm probably going out on a limb here, but it's possible that 9to5mac.com has a slight bias. For instance, notice how they're only listing Windows 7 specifically, rather than all current versions of Windows.

I'd like to see all of Windows versus one specific version of OS X.

Read the survey. It is using pretty much word or word the survey results.

http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2016

There is WAY more interesting stuff in that survey than a platform fanboy war.

OS x... what an interesting platform. The OS is fine but Apples management of hardware for the platform has really hampered its actual relevancy. Their insistence on locking dedicated GPU’s to literally the top tier products has rendered them irrelevant. They are in such a small portion of the ALL PREMIUM apple OS X lineup that it’s a joke. No software can reliably take advantage of that niche hardware. Its why All major apps for graphics and engineering are either windows exclusive or just run better on windows.

I like OS X, and I want to like Apple’s offerings, but their insistence on relying on Intel graphics (while charging a crazy premium) has rendered their hardware relevancy to the back of the line. And as a result the software support for their platform continues to dwindle in spite of record popularity with millennials and grandparents.

kamikaziechameleon wrote:

OS x... what an interesting platform. The OS is fine but Apples management of hardware for the platform has really hampered its actual relevancy. Their insistence on locking dedicated GPU’s to literally the top tier products has rendered them irrelevant. They are in such a small portion of the ALL PREMIUM apple OS X lineup that it’s a joke. No software can reliably take advantage of that niche hardware. Its why All major apps for graphics and engineering are either windows exclusive or just run better on windows.

I like OS X, and I want to like Apple’s offerings, but their insistence on relying on Intel graphics (while charging a crazy premium) has rendered their hardware relevancy to the back of the line. And as a result the software support for their platform continues to dwindle in spite of record popularity with millennials and grandparents.

Dwindle? Lol, look again, it just keeps getting larger and larger.

I can't help but laugh at the usage of Big Macs to normalize purchasing power between countries.

I never trust any developer who picks Star Wars over Star Trek. This survey only confirms my suspicions that talented developers are a dying breed.

Standard issue computing device at my current employer is a MacBook Pro. That goes for everyone, including R&D.

I actually spend most of my time in a Debian VM. This works reasonably well, though the GPU struggles visibly (it lags when dragging windows around) when connected to an external 4K monitor.

The lack of standard DisplayPort and Ethernet jacks is kind of retarded, but hey I'm not paying for the special cables/dongles out of my own pocket, so whatever.

seeker010 wrote:

I never trust any developer who picks Star Wars over Star Trek. This survey only confirms my suspicions that talented developers are a dying breed.

+1

Edit: Just to add my experience. MBP is our standard dev machine too. I like developing on OS X much much much more than Windows. And I made them give me a Thunderbolt display so the port thing isn't quite as big of a deal for me. The lack of ethernet and standard DP is a little stupid though.

I don't believe it, not for a second. UNIX / Linux I could believe, my company uses almost all Red Hat or AIX for production and dev projects. But really, outside of pretentious artsy, hipster "prosumer" markets, OSX (just like iOS) has no place in the professional tech world.

Deanjo wrote:

kamikaziechameleon wrote:

OS x... what an interesting platform. The OS is fine but Apples management of hardware for the platform has really hampered its actual relevancy. Their insistence on locking dedicated GPU’s to literally the top tier products has rendered them irrelevant. They are in such a small portion of the ALL PREMIUM apple OS X lineup that it’s a joke. No software can reliably take advantage of that niche hardware. Its why All major apps for graphics and engineering are either windows exclusive or just run better on windows.

I like OS X, and I want to like Apple’s offerings, but their insistence on relying on Intel graphics (while charging a crazy premium) has rendered their hardware relevancy to the back of the line. And as a result the software support for their platform continues to dwindle in spite of record popularity with millennials and grandparents.

Dwindle? Lol, look again, it just keeps getting larger and larger.

Maybe for Coding but on the Graphics end of the spectrum Mac has totally forfeited its un challenged supremacy. Engineering apps are not better served on their platform. I was in an office that made the switch over from macs to windows 6 years ago when adobe stopped offering GPU rendering acceleration on that platform. Instead of having to buy us all new 5,000 dollar Mac Pro's they could get a 1,500 dollar Dell, and the software was better, more plentiful and cheaper. The reasons professional graphics and engineering development really forked away from Mac has only grown. Not to say that all companies or businesses are abandoning it, obviously coding/development is deeply entrenched in OSx. But there is allot of other anomalies happening in that industry so the Mac preference is the least odd trend.

ultima_trev wrote:

I don't believe it, not for a second. UNIX / Linux I could believe, my company uses almost all Red Hat or AIX for production and dev projects. But really, outside of pretentious artsy, hipster "prosumer" markets, OSX (just like iOS) has no place in the professional tech world.

So just because you use something, that's what you could believe, and when you don't use something, that's when you can't believe? Then I refuse to believe it's anything other than 95% Windows, since that's what most of my employer's software runs on.

See how that line of reasoning sucks?

OS X is the only platform which you can develop iOS apps on. Ergo, if you are a mobile developer, you need an OS X system.

Monopolistic lock-in at its finest.

SuperSpy wrote:

I can't help but laugh at the usage of Big Macs to normalize purchasing power between countries.

The Big Mac index is from The Economist and they've used it, I believe, since the 1980s.

So much bs clickbait... Win7+win10+win8 is what 50-ish % ... The sample pool is also missing server 2008, server 2012... 24% vs 50% is not a win make

http://stackoverflow.com/research/devel ... 5-collapse

Note this slide... Without win10... Sure there's a 8% ish osx increase.. But there's still 2x as many windows dev still ATM.


Berevity via phone app.

This survey also ranks Delphi above Typescript and Bash.

As a Typescript developer, I can tell you this survey deserves less credibility than Trump Linux Mint's security. There is no way Typescript is used more than Bash.

NTMBK wrote:

OS X is the only platform which you can develop iOS apps on. Ergo, if you are a mobile developer, you need an OS X system.

Yeah, that is true. I wouldn't have a Mac here without it. OTOH, it can also run every (relevant) OS under the sun. If I wanted to boot into Windows or a Linux distro, it can do that too. Thanks to VMs you don't even have to do that.

ultima_trev wrote:

But really, outside of pretentious artsy, hipster "prosumer" markets, OSX (just like iOS) has no place in the professional tech world.

It's a good thing your anecdotal opinion is jut as factually based as the data in the survey, eh?

I work in enterprise IT in NYC and MacBook Airs/Pros are by far the most common PC in every vertical I participate in. Even for people with a heavy MS/Azure focus like I have, OS X's superior hypervisor support and integration makes is an easy choice for running multi-platform workloads.

ultima_trev wrote:

I don't believe it, not for a second. UNIX / Linux I could believe, my company uses almost all Red Hat or AIX for production and dev projects. But really, outside of pretentious artsy, hipster "prosumer" markets, OSX (just like iOS) has no place in the professional tech world.

What a load of crap. I live in a linux based server world at work and OS X fits right in. OS X is a UNIX 03 registered product. At the very least it is as good as any desktop Linux distro.

As far as iOS is concerned it is widely accepted as a leader in the enterprise market. Just ask IBM.

Windows falls as a platform.

Rather shocking.

61% of Perl devs hate Perl according to the survey. That survey must have a poor sample.

ultima_trev wrote:

I don't believe it, not for a second. UNIX / Linux I could believe, my company uses almost all Red Hat or AIX for production and dev projects. But really, outside of pretentious artsy, hipster "prosumer" markets, OSX (just like iOS) has no place in the professional tech world.

You have no idea what you're talking about. OS X has a stronger claim to being a "real" UNIX than Linux does, given that it is based on the original BSD code base (instead of being a from-scratch re-implementation of the APIs).

Macolytes shouldn't get all too excited. The pink elephant in room is that *nix slowly but surely taking over the enterprise space. Microsoft's massive misstep with Windows 8 is biting them in arse. Windows 10 and UWP initiatives came a little too late to change the tide.

Microsoft is falling into similar traps that befell Sears and GM. They all get too complacent at their height and senior management made blunder after blunder which allow competition to sweep in and take over.

It is a happy coincidence that OS X in its current form (based on BSD) shares many similarities to *nix family. So developing applications to work under *nix and OS X is child's play when compared to developing an application to work under NT, *nix and OS X.

Krogoth wrote:

Macolytes shouldn't get all too excited. The pink elephant in room is that *nix slowly but surely taking over the enterprise space. Microsoft's massive misstep with Windows 8 is biting them in arse. Windows 10 and UWP initiatives came a little too late to change the tide.

Microsoft is falling into similar traps that befell Sears and GM. They all get too complacent at their height and senior management made blunder after blunder which allow competition to sweep in and take over.

It is a happy coincidence that OS X in its current form (based on BSD) shares many similarities to *nix family. So developing applications to work under *nix and OS X is child's play when compared to developing an application to work under NT, *nix and OS X.

This is all true. I just wish Apple had bothered to update OpenGL since the release of 10.9 and would incorporate Vulkan... Being stuck at OpenGL 4.1 is starting to pinch, and Metal's only an answer if you intend to stay within Apple's lines.

kamikaziechameleon wrote:

I was in an office that made the switch over from macs to windows 6 years ago when adobe stopped offering GPU rendering acceleration on that platform.

When did that supposedly happen? (Adobe stuff still offers GPU rendering acceleration on OS X and gpgpu acceleration, through openCL or Cuda if you have an nvidia card. They are also soon to release Metal accelerated version of their apps.)

just brew it! wrote:

ultima_trev wrote:

I don't believe it, not for a second. UNIX / Linux I could believe, my company uses almost all Red Hat or AIX for production and dev projects. But really, outside of pretentious artsy, hipster "prosumer" markets, OSX (just like iOS) has no place in the professional tech world.

You have no idea what you're talking about. OS X has a stronger claim to being a "real" UNIX than Linux does, given that it is based on the original BSD code base (instead of being a from-scratch re-implementation of the APIs).

Yup, fact is that OS X is UNIX 2003 registered and compliant product. Linux is a "UNIX-like" OS.

But guyyyyyyyysssssssssss, if you don't use RHEL or IBM you're not a true *nix user and you're a pretentious hipster.

DancinJack wrote:

But guyyyyyyyysssssssssss, if you don't use RHEL or IBM you're not a true *nix user and you're a pretentious hipster.

Eh, it's all the same train, there are just different cars...