Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hepabolu@gmail.com designates
 72.14.220.156 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=CeK2OyOsRivmJX09gGwH1/Ldjvc4LyqjFyY7VV1myRc29gaysxuzqPzUusfXXR33ZYsqpQh+J41Vl0A9j4jWroJxJ9Ols4/g23witMdaosnRBojqu4YqUa7CgyCakxiYbxYIlCpSo3TdwG3J1mN1vVxEGjsdM966iSjZTh4RJWE=
Message-ID: <48241D1A.5060208@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 11:44:58 +0200
From: hepabolu <hepabolu@gmail.com>
Reply-To: hepabolu@gmail.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [OT] Mac OS X and Java development
References: <2007168600.1207280004238.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
	 <47F5A672.9030702@gmx.de>
 <47F64A3B.3070108@apache.org>	 <48228B61.4060901@gmx.de>
 <3b3449e00805080239g7c7ba593p4db50b8f5496cf31@mail.gmail.com>
 <4823C69E.9020506@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4823C69E.9020506@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just chiming in.

>> Came preinstalled on my mac.  Did you install the dev tools?
> 
> No dev tools. Are they only available for Leopard? I'm still on Tiger - 
> and would rather switch to Linux than spending money for Leopard ;)

All versions of Mac OS X (at least from Panther or Tiger) come with dev 
tools on the installation CD/DVD. Just pop in the installation disk and 
select the developer tools.

> That's probably personal taste. I can do lots of stuff faster with just 
> the keyboard.

LOL the ability to do much more with just the keyboard is one of the 
strong arguments for me to switch to OS X. ;-)

> But not in Eclipse ;) Anyways, I don't want to get started with letters 
> for cursor navigation.

Eclipse, jEdit and many other developer tools are more or less platform 
independent and therefore by definition not mac-native. Using Windows 
you're used to having a diversion in keybindings and GUI-interface 
layout, but Mac apps are much more consistent, so the exception to the 
rule stands out more prominently.
The reason Mac apps are more consistent is the fact that a larger part 
of the underlying frameworks are available to the developers. This also 
results in applications that are much smaller.

>> Huh, I didn't realize people still run such older versions of MacOS.
> 
> Tiger? Leopard is only out since 1/2 year, so what ... And I'm not 
> willing to pay for it.

I agree. 'Older versions' should refer to pre-Tiger versions. I truly 
think some people are on those, but the majority has moved to Tiger or 
Leopard by now. From what I read Tiger is considered a very stable, very 
  mature version, while Leopard seems to be a kind of 'infant of the new 
generation'. It does provide new and interesting functionality, but it 
also introduces problems that will probably be solved in the next 
updates/versions.

> Why a completely separated version after all? I can see the point of a 
> native look&feel, but beyond that ...

It's not a completely separated version. AFAIK it's repackaged to fit in 
Apple's idea of how to layout the frameworks. At least it's set up in a 
way that changing versions is really simple.
And yes, sometimes it would be better if Apple didn't force their ideas 
on the users so much.

Bye, Helma