8 replies to this topic

[Prometheus98876]

Ok firstly which OS do the programmers out there prefer to use for purposes of programming. Please also specify why you think that might be the case.

Also what cross-platform programimng languages/tools do you prefer.

Edited by Prometheus98876, 03 August 2008 - 08:51 PM.

[Capitalism Forever]

UNIX is more like a platform than an operating system today, and all the other choices you listed except Windows are more or less subsumed under it. I voted "UNIX," since I don't have a strong preference for any of the variants--although I'd be a bit hesitant to buy a Mac, since I think a decent mouse ought to have at least two buttons and a scrollwheel between them. Windows is good for uploading your photo albums, but it's not a developer's OS.

[skap35]

I mainly use Linux for programming. However, at work I use Windows (C#.NET) and it works well. Windows programming has a lot of problems but Visual Studio 2008 and the newer version of .NET have made some major advances that have eliminated most of the really annoying problems.

As a throwback to the good 'ole days, my all time favorite development OS is VAX/VMS. That is what I learned on when I first started college and the design of the CPU and operating system are very, very logical. The day they discontinued that line was very sad for me.

I've also developed on Solaris and find that to be a very nice system. The one version of UNIX that I don't like to develop on is AIX. But that's probably because it's just not what I'm used to and the reference material online isn't as readily available since it isn't used much.

[eriatarka]

It depends on the language - with some (eg C/C++) I wouldnt want to use windows, but with others it doesnt matter too much. Most of my programming just now is in R/matlab and the IDEs for these are basially the same on both platforms. When I'm coding lisp/python then I'd require a good (integrated) text editor and a proper shell rather than the worthless crap windows comes with, but you can use cygwin as a shell replacement and things like emacs have windows versions now.

Linux is still better but you can make windows quite similar to linux these days so there isnt that much to choose between them imo.

Edited by eriatarka, 05 August 2008 - 06:56 AM.

[Capitalism Forever]

Linux is still better but you can make windows quite similar to linux these days

Well, if you need to make one like the other, that does say something about which one is better!

[AulusAemilius]

I prefer FreeBSD over Linux for servers, programming, and exploring the inner workings of an operating system. Read about their different development philosophies here.

[tito]

While BSD has a better philosophy, philosophy tends to mean little in software development (At least, in the sense that most developers use it)

For example, the Ubuntu project holds nonsensical philosophy ("I am what I am because of who we all are"/"Humanity to others") yet the end product is superb. The reason is because their 'philosophy' is just marketing.

[DavidV]

Ok firstly which OS do the programmers out there prefer to use for purposes of programming. Please also specify why you think that might be the case.

Also what cross-platform programimng languages/tools do you prefer.

I don't think this is a very meaningful question. The OS is just a shell and a class library, and does not present a meaningful distinction. The real choice is which programming language and framework is most useful for you. Good languages/frameworks will run in any OS, so for example, you can run C# code on Linux, BSD, UNIX, Mac OS X, Solaris, and Windows. As far as development goes, I like Visual Studio.Net, which works well on Windows as well as MacOS/Linux with emulation. I plan to get a Macbook Pro for my next .Net development platform.

[AulusAemilius]

While BSD has a better philosophy, philosophy tends to mean little in software development (At least, in the sense that most developers use it)

For example, the Ubuntu project holds nonsensical philosophy ("I am what I am because of who we all are"/"Humanity to others") yet the end product is superb. The reason is because their 'philosophy' is just marketing.

When I referred to philosophy, I referred to the general process by which the two operating systems are developed. You are correct that the name "Ubuntu" means little for their project, because this is not the method they use when developing their distribution.

The Linux kernel is developed independentally, and it tends to grow and evolve. All other applications are developed independentally, and various groups string everything together to make distributions. The BSD's take a totally different approach: a small elite develops the kernel and ports programs to work especially well with the BSD. They are stored in the same FTP site as the kernel, and consequently very well documented. The kernel does not evolve as much; even the smallest changes/patches are given much scrutiny and consideration.

They also have different licenses; I think BSD has a better license, as it is not anti-corporate/copyleft. This has been to its advantage (I am not implying the GPL is immoral in any way or that it's a good reason not to use Linux).

Because FreeBSD is built with speed and stability in mind, it makes for excellent servers, and the handbook is superb... never have I seen an equivalent for understand a GNU/Linux system. Other BSD projects specialize in different areas; OpenBSD for security, NetBSD for portability, DragonflyBSD for distributed computing (although I think Solaris is king in that area).

Edited by AulusAemilius, 21 August 2008 - 06:35 PM.