Native iOS development made simple [video]
21–27 of 27 posts
Re: Native iOS development made simple [video]
#22Re: Native iOS development made simple [video]
#23Except the product will also looks like it's designed by a caveman.. :D But pretty cool for the everyday idea man out there
Re: Native iOS development made simple [video]
#24From all the app code generators I've seen and used, the experience is absolutely horrendous. Memory leaks, does not five you full access into the API etc... It's a lot easier to suck it up and learn Objective-C than having to deal with these tools.
Out of curiosity have you used or seen Xamarin? I've heard a lot of hype and talked to fairly experienced people who say it doesn't add too much in size or performance cost.
My reservation is the cost. I bought MonoTouch when it was first released and wrote a game for the iPad with it[1]. If I wanted to release that game now though, I'd have to re-buy MonoTouch, which doesn't sit well with me. But if you're not a hobbyest then the cost is pretty irrelevant IMO.
Re: Native iOS development made simple [video]
#25If your app does anything more than just displaying content, it still seems like you'll have to jump into the code.
Re: Native iOS development made simple [video]
#26From all the app code generators I've seen and used, the experience is absolutely horrendous. Memory leaks, does not five you full access into the API etc... It's a lot easier to suck it up and learn Objective-C than having to deal with these tools.
Re: Native iOS development made simple [video]
#27Nice idea, but the sample code they show in the screenshot uses "FALSE" instead of NO (the Obj-C standard boolean literal). I'm not sure how they did that (#define?) but stay far, far away. Imagine if you opened up a Ruby codebase and found out I had aliased NO to be the same as the language builtin false... yeesh. Also, setting boolean instance variables to NO in init is silly since Obj-C objects are calloc'd, so al…
CFBase.h defines TRUE as 1 and FALSE as 0. There's no reason to think that they defined it themselves (and indeed, I believe this would error unless they explicitly checked for a previous definition).