Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: Stata for the Macintosh News

From   [email protected]
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: Stata for the Macintosh News
Date   Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:42:43 -0600

David Airey <[email protected]> wrote:

> If there is no drastic _loss_ in optimization, the gain in use of more 
> RAM would seem worth using Apple's developer tools. If you use a set of 
> developer tools whose business interests are not primarily Apple's, 
> what timetable are we talking here? Wasn't this the point of Apple 
> providing these tools at no cost? I must be missing something here.

It's quite a lot of work switching from our current developer tools to
Apple's.  First of all, converting our project over is no simple task and we
do not like switching developer tools during a release cycle.  But one big
reason, to be quite blunt, is that Apple's Project Builder is _not very good_
(I've actually got stronger words but I'll keep them to myself).  Absolutely
horrendous to work in.  X-Code is slightly better but built on the same
foundation so it's painful to work in too.

This would all be worth it if it Apple's tools produced better code but it
doesn't.  In the old days, Apple's gcc produced code was significantly slower
than the CodeWarrior produced code.  They've narrowed the gap a bit with gcc
3.3 but CodeWarrior produced code is still 10-20% faster than gcc 3.3 produced

Even an Apple engineer admitted to me that CodeWarrior produces faster code in
most cases.  That's why we haven't made the switch.  CodeWarrior produces
better code and has the best development environment on any platform so it's
an easy choice.  And I can't fault CodeWarrior for not having G5 support yet.
Apple left a lot of people in the dark about the G5 and it's not something a
developer can support overnight.  I suspect G5 support is forthcoming from
them and will be from us soon afterwards.

Anyway, Apple has not been very helpful in terms of 64-bit support.  I can't
find one shred of documentation on how to produce 64-bit code with their gcc.

"Eric G. Wruck" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This problem apparently isn't unique to OS X 10.3 as my -update swap- failed
> on my OS X 10.2.8 machine.  Furthermore, Stata did not create the STATANEW
> folder as described elsewhere in Chinh's eMail.  I called Stata & ended up
> downloading the update from their website directly.

Although we tested this on all of our computers here with no problems, we have
had some reports of pre-Panther systems failing to do an update swap.  My
suggestions from before apply in this case.  Or you can do as Eric has done
and download the update from the website.

-Chinh Nguyen
 [email protected]
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index