Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

startuptrekking.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#71

Post by whatusername »

skorgu wrote: post #52
megablast wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so you want someone else to decide what you can do with your car. Maybe you wouldn't mind if Apple stopped you from going to certain websites as well. Maybe if they blocked you from calling certain people, that would make life 'better' for you. Maybe you could get some isneakers, that only let you walk from your house to your car, or car to workplace? I don't understand this point of view, you want less choice? M…

All 'cars' are compromises. Any low-riding sports car would be damaged by riding on a rutted road, that's the tradeoff inherent in purchasing one. Lotus (say) isn't saying you can't drive here or there, they just build cars that happen not to be suitable for a given activity. A passable analogy since car manufacturers have far less ongoing control might be Lotus voiding the warranty for your Elise if you took it on a…

But If I want to ruin my iCar (say by putting it in a blender) then I should be able to. That can void the warranty, but I shouldn't be physically stopped from doing it.

Another car analogy (which cuts both ways) I can think of is the Nissan GTR -- it has a speed limiter built in that stops you going over a certain speed on normal roads -- but then when you are on a racetrack all limits are off.

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#72

Post by andrewescott »

megablast wrote: post #45
th wrote: post #2

I like the parody but it's not really a fair comparison. In many cases paved roads evolve out of country roads while nothing can ever evolve out of Flash.

I think the parody helps people think a bit more about the issue. The problem with the analogy is that all Apple has to do to allow the iCar to run on country roads, is allow people to steer onto it. To get flash onto the iPhone/iPad, they have to allow a completely different development team to run code on the root user of their device. They would have to change the OS, to allow unproven code to run, from a company…

This is what Apple already allows with the App Store. Except if your app smells like Adobe.

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#73

Post by defen »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #55
pohl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there really 9 readers of HN (you and 8 positive mods) who think that neither C, nor Objective C, nor C++, nor JavaScript are as Turing equivalent as any programming language can be said to be whilst constrained in a finite amount of memory? How else could one be said to have "killed" Turing equivalence unless it didn't remain after other source languages were excluded? Melodrama trumps computer science today?

Turing equivalence guarantees there's a way to write a program in some other language that produces exactly the same results as a program in ObjC. This deep compatibility made it feasible for the industry to adopt better and better languages. But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. (As I understand it, JavaScript doesn't belong on the l…

To be fair, that program in some other language only produces the "same results" - there's no guarantee it won't be significantly slower or use significantly more memory. Which is exactly Steve's point.

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#74

Post by akshaybhat »

pohl wrote: post #42
CamperBob wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing Turing equivalence is a bigger deal than killing RS-232 ports and floppy drives.

Are there really 9 readers of HN (you and 8 positive mods) who think that neither C, nor Objective C, nor C++, nor JavaScript are as Turing equivalent as any programming language can be said to be whilst constrained in a finite amount of memory? How else could one be said to have "killed" Turing equivalence unless it didn't remain after other source languages were excluded? Melodrama trumps computer science today?

yeah why dont you try coding in Assembly for that matter or even better submit the circuit designs,

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#78

Post by boucher »

defen wrote: post #73
prodigal_erik wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing equivalence guarantees there's a way to write a program in some other language that produces exactly the same results as a program in ObjC. This deep compatibility made it feasible for the industry to adopt better and better languages. But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. (As I understand it, JavaScript doesn't belong on the l…

To be fair, that program in some other language only produces the "same results" - there's no guarantee it won't be significantly slower or use significantly more memory. Which is exactly Steve's point.

Nor is there any guarantee it won't be significantly faster or use significantly less memory, which is the OP's point.

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#79

Post by mseebach »

mathamagics wrote: post #53

If the iCar is truly revolutionary (for instance, it can guarantee you will NEVER get into a fatal car accident) then I'd say the "full road" is a small sacrifice. People who want the full road can still buy traditional cars, right? Vote with your dollar.

The iCar might rely on special features in the full roads to provide some level of automated steering.

I've considered some passive "beacons", shaped as nails, to be placed in roads, that can outline the lanes, complete with information about direction, speed-limits, exits etc. A smart car should be able to use those, along with a (ra|li)dar, to provide automated steering on equipped roads.

Re: Steve Jobs, circa 2020: "Thoughts on country roads"

#80

Post by prodigal_erik »

GHFigs wrote: post #65
prodigal_erik wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing equivalence guarantees there's a way to write a program in some other language that produces exactly the same results as a program in ObjC. This deep compatibility made it feasible for the industry to adopt better and better languages. But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. (As I understand it, JavaScript doesn't belong on the l…

But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. Your opinion of the languages does not trump the reality that the overwhelming majority of iPhone OS applications were written in them, as was the OS itself, even when it was not a requirement. Trying to make it sound like recent changes to the App Store agreement are the only reason people use Ob…

I know that ObjC has always been heavily used in NEXTSTEP and OS X apps (if not a lot else) even before this. My concern is that mainstream vendors will conclude that we tolerate this sort of abuse, and the problem will spread. I care that the industry permits good languages to exist, not whether the majority are interested in using them.
Post reply on HN