[linguafranca]

Completely true.

Kind of makes me want to look more seriously into making apps for Microsoft platforms.

That said, Mac owners are generally far more likely to go out and look for new apps to buy. Whereas Windows users will find an app that does the job, and keep using that app forever (and recommend it to friends/family).

So even though there are way more Windows users, it seems more likely to make a living as an indie Mac dev than an indie Windows dev.

[swartkrans]

> making apps for Microsoft platforms.

They're both not great, so you would just be trading one set of problems for another. You might want to look at building web applications, which also has problems. There is no perfect platform. You just have to figure out which set of problems hurts your business the least.

[monstermonster]

Disagree. Been building "apps" since when they were called programs for windows, Unix and Mac. Windows is the great constant, has the greatest overall power and flexibility. Unix is a mess of portability and build problems, mac has incredibly high framework churn and low longevity but as I've said already, stuff I wrote for NT4 in 1996 works today absolutely fine and I reckon it will in another 20 years.

Not only that, the market for well paying customers is huge if you ignore the volatile and unprofitable "store" model and sell bespoke and specialised stuff.

Don't solve popular problems, solve well paying ones :)

As for the web it's getting there but a lot of bigger clients won't touch it yet.

[millstone]

I'm primarily a Mac developer. From my outside perspective, the Windows framework churn looks enormous. The "best way" to write a Windows app went from Win32/MFC, to WinForms, to Silverlight and WPF, to WinRT, and still seems to be evolving. The preferred language has gone from C++ to C# to C++/C#/JavaScript(?), and now MS is pushing a UI framework that seems terribly ill-suited to what traditional desktop apps have done.

On the Mac side, the story has been constant since OS X first shipped: the best way to write a Mac app is to use the Cocoa frameworks, with Objective-C. There was some churn around garbage collection, and now Swift, but overall the developer story has been much more stable than with Windows.

[monstermonster]

Err we still use win32 and MFC. Plus some winforms which is a wrapper around win32 via the CLR. Not much has changed. Hell even WinRT is just a win32 wrapper. Office is a ball of win32 and MFC too.

Absolutely no one is touching WinRT or WPF apart from a few trading dashboard outfits and for win phone which is fine. It'll hang around but will still sit on top of the win32 subsystem.

Bear in mind there is very little difference between windows 1.0 code (1985) windows 8.1 code now. There's some 16 bit scum on the API but that's it.

Mac... You forgot carbon...

[snowwrestler]

I don't think Carbon was ever a recommended way to build OS X apps. It was basically a compatibility layer for vendors who couldn't easily rebuild their apps on Cocoa.

[scholia]

> Bear in mind there is very little difference between windows 1.0 code (1985) windows 8.1 code now. There's some 16 bit scum on the API but that's it.

That's like saying there's no difference between Mac OS from 1984 and Mac OS X. You're ignoring the shift from DOS-based Windows to the NT (New Technology) version which is more like VAX VMS (and had the same lead author). There were also some major changes with the introduction of .Net and the CLR.

[monstermonster]

Actually no.

You can take a program from the "MSDOS Encyclopaedia" which contains a windows 2.0 programming section, type it out in notepad on a windows 8.1 box, compile it and it will run now like it did in 1988. I tried it. It works.

That's what I'm talking about.

The kernel and CLR are irrelevant. Proof: the same program works on Wine on Linux after it is compiled.

[72deluxe]

I too occasionally use MFC but my word do I hate it.

[mihaela]

I'm doing iOS now, but for Win I would choose Delphi if the price was not absurdly high. WinForms, WPF, Silverlight does not produce a self sufficent app. Qt is a great choice for Win, but about $4k per developer/year (for self sufficent app).

[blub]

Actually I would suggest the LGPL Qt if you can use that license. And it should be about 1500 EUR per year nowadays.

[72deluxe]

Ever tried Lazarus and Free Pascal? That might be a cheaper route for your Delphi/Windows paradise, no?

[mihaela]

Cannot use Lazarus for DevExpress does not support it. Their amazing UI components and native nature of Delphi lets you build visually attractive and very fast and robust applications.

[ZanyProgrammer]

Don't forget VB6!

[WorldWideWayne]

That's not a fair comparison at all. You listed pre-year-2000 tech for Microsoft, but not for Apple.

A fair comparison would include Apple's complete 180 from Mac OS 9 to OS X.

Furthermore, Microsoft has never once said that any of those are the "best way" to write a Windows app. They may give you more choices than Apple would ever give you, but they don't say "this is the best way" to write a Windows app.

Win32 is the core API of Windows and that fact hasn't changed since Windows 95. Winforms is simply a .NET wrapper around that API. You can even run pre-Windows 95 apps on Modern windows without an extremely heavy-handed emulation layer like Carbon.

[thothamon]

I agree with your point about the time scale, but OS 9 and OS X are entirely different OSes with basically nothing in common but the name "Mac OS". It's more like releasing an entirely new OS, not shifting an OS by 180 degrees. Maybe the difference between DOS and NT is a similar comparison.

At any rate, if having a program run unchanged for the longest period of time is our gold standard, then I think MS wins. They have harmed their platform significantly by their total dedication to backward compatibility. By comparison, Apple has emphasized the quality of the platform at the expense of convenience to developers. I think Apple made the better choice for consumers (and even for developers in the long run), but it's certainly arguable.

[millstone]

I'll concede that there was definitely more churn around the change from OS 9 to OS X. But the result was definite forward progress: the entire OS moved off of its legacy core. This was clearly a transition period, with both the legacy APIs and modern replacements clearly identified.

I don't think Microsoft's churn is like that at all. Instead it seems to reflect churn in their internal strategy. They attempt transitions, but abandon them before they are complete. There's no overall trajectory.

The latest is WinRT. Take a look at https://dev.windows.com/ . It's all about Windows 8, Windows Runtime apps, etc. Other technologies are buried. Wouldn't you agree that MS is positioning WinRT as the new preferred way to write for Windows? (If not, their messaging is terrible.)

Characterizing these development options as MS giving developers "choices" is crap. WPF developers aren't excited about having WinRT as another choice, they're worried that WPF is abandoned and their investment is obsolete. They saw it happen to Silverlight. See http://pragmateek.com/is-wpf-dead-the-present-and-future-of-... for example. See http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-563 too.

This isn't 1998 and I'm not looking for some Mac vs PC flamewar. These are serious problems. They're making existing developers sweat, and new developers are taking a wait-and-see approach. It's hard to watch, but I'm optimistic about Nadella turning it around.

Oh, and Carbon is not an emulation layer at all, nor is it "heavy handed." Perhaps you have it confused with the Classic environment?

[WorldWideWayne]

Have you ever actually worked professionally with Microsoft tech for any length of time? Have you followed Microsoft closely for 3 decades because your paycheck rides on knowing what's going on with them? If not, I'll forgive you for being an outsider...and yes, I meant Classic.

Microsoft has historically employed over 30,000 developers. That's a lot of people working on new software products. The "churn" you're talking about is, in fact, just more choices for you. It's crazy though you know - you don't have to use the latest thing from Microsoft! (We don't worship them like a lot of Apple-centric devs seem to do with Apple.) Sure, they're trying new things like WinRT and they'd like devs to use them. If things don't take off, they scrap them.

Who cares? You can still use a kit from 1998 (VB6) to make apps on Windows today without too much difficulty. Could you even use XCode from 2005 to make an app for OS X Mavericks? I doubt it.

According to your logic - web developers would never get anywhere because there's so much new tech/frameworks/etc being thrown at them and no corporation to tell them exactly what to choose.

[maxxxxx]

I'd agree with millstone Every few years MS pushes a new UI framework (MFC, WTL, WinForms,WPF, WinRT, SilverLight) and abandons it after a few years. Other than Win32 which is not easy to use there really is no obvious choice which framework to use.

If I had to start a new desktop app for Windows I would probably go with Qt. I would not trust MS.

[monstermonster]

We still use win32 with a light weight C++ abstraction we wrote ourselves (like MFC but better). It's not really complicated or hard.

MFC+Win32+WinForms are equivalent with different wrappers. So is WPF/WinRT/Silverlight so that's actually only two tech platforms.

[maxxxxx]

With the exception of Win32 all MS "choices" are half-baked and will be abandoned after a while without an upgrade path.

[pyre]

> stuff I wrote for NT4 in 1996 works today absolutely fine and I reckon it will in another 20 years

What about:

- Plays For Sure?

- Silverlight?

- ActiveX?

- 16-bit apps?

- DOS apps?

- etc...

I'm sure any of the stuff that you wrote for Windows For Workgroups doesn't still work. I think that your 20 years prediction is entirely too optimistic.

[monstermonster]

Plays for sure was no different to iTunes DRM and m4p files. It died because no one wanted it.

Silverlight was a dead end I agree but it is still officially supported.

ActiveX is still supported. It's just COM.

16-bit apps and DOS apps worked until everything went 64-bit. Win7 32-bit could run DOS apps. This is a processor limitation. NT had a VDM subsystem for this.

Win32 abstracts away WFWG stuff so I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm writing this on a windows NT machine with 512Mb of RAM running win32 and WPF for ref (win phone).

[pyre]

> Silverlight was a dead end I agree but it is still officially supported.

For how long though? The parent post was talking about everything working 20 years into the future.

> ActiveX is still supported. It's just COM.

Are you disputing that there are companies still out there that have internal apps reliant on IE6? I'm not saying it's smart, but at this point keeping IE6 going has to be work. If they could upgrade, why wouldn't they?

> This is a processor limitation.

When you are predicting that your 18 year old app will continue to function out-of-the-box for another 20 years, how is hardware not a factor?

[monstermonster]

Yes 20 years no problems for windows API. Look how old the Unix API is. Not Silverlight although most of that is portable straight to c#+WPF deployed via ClickOnce with a few hours' work.

We have a company that has IE6 and XP deployed to over 1000 workstations. IE11 does ActiveX still. We use it via WebTwain to scan documents from a web app via a drum scanner. It works very well.

Hardware is not a factor. Don't forget that x86 is well over 30 years old already, isn't even CISC under ISA any more and there is virtualization and emulation as well. I saw windows 95 booting on a wrist watch in the tech press the other day.

[72deluxe]

"high framework churn" - an excellent description of the relentless API changes in Apple land, if I may say so. It is comforting to be able to run ancient applications on Windows compared to the inability to run apps built for Leopard on Mavericks (or even Snow Leopard), let alone anything from the Rosetta days (Homeworld 2 is now a useless game to me on Mac OSX).

[to3m]

On a similar note, there's a little note about garbage collection's grim future here, at the end: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/Objecti...

[72deluxe]

Would you say that ARC is a suitable alternative? I'm not "in the know" about such things.

[BigChiefSmokem]

Completely and profusely disagree.

What Microsoft has built around Visual Studio, on all stacks (desktop, mobile, cloud), is the result of a lot of developer love. Also - Web Essentials, MVC, JavaScript IntelliSense and debugging - all godsend to the modern web developer.

Believe it or not Ballmer wasn't just exhausting wind when he would scream about "Developers! Developers! Developers!"

Xcode has the same problems described by coldcode - that Apple cares very little. Swift was a step in the right direction but just the first step, let's see where it leads us.

[linguafranca]

(Disclaimer: that last part was told to me as advice by a lone indie dev who makes about $189,000 per year off his lone Mac app and puts nearly all of the revenue in savings. So I have a bit of trust in that advice.)

[72deluxe]

Wowsers, what app is that?

[jawngee]

My one sole app in MAS pays my rent and some bills every month with absolutely zero marketing or advertising on my part.

[72deluxe]

May I ask which app it is? It is good to know that MAS does indeed produce such success.

[jawngee]

Shave, a video editor for OS X.

http://shave.rocks/

[zyxley]

That seems anecdotally accurate to me. It's not hard to find "spiritual sequel" Mac and iOS apps that do quite well as people switch to them from older apps that are lacking in development or aren't as "cool" anymore, such as Cyberduck -> Transmit, iSSH -> vSSH, BBEdit -> TextMate -> Sublime Text -> Atom, and so on.

[WorldWideWayne]

That's if you are trying to sell to consumers. Try making some business software.

Every business on the planet runs Windows and they all need new software all the time.