Why I'm Not Using RubyMotion in Production

Post by coldtea » Wed, Jun 26, 2013, 11:44 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #20

coldtea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's NOT using ARC. It's using an "analog" (in the original post's words). With which he means "a substitute", "a similar tech", "their own implementation of the same concept", "something analogous to ARC" (hence the "analog"). (Most people know "analog" only as in "analog vs digital", but it was immediately obvious to me, because I know the etymology of the word from the original language it was adopted from. Btw, t…

Personally, I use "analog" to mean "not digital" and "analogue" to mean "something similar to". I think that's a little clearer, at least to some US readers.

Post by easyd » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 12:04 AM UTC

od2m wrote: post #22

I've always been suspscious of RubyMotion for having no trial. Now I know.

Post by scribu » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 12:51 AM UTC

ef4 wrote: post #19

I'm happy that the RubyMotion guys can charge money for what they're doing. But if you're going to stay closed source, you're asking me to just trust you that important (to me) bugs are going to get fixed fast enough. That is very hard to do. That is the real value of open source. It's not about the money -- an extra $200 is nothing in a development budget. It's about being able to fix the bugs myself when they matte…

Post by jevinskie » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 12:52 AM UTC

stashpro wrote: post #24

That's a lot of fuzz for an active bug with a very easy workaround.

Post by Legion » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 1:39 AM UTC

jevinskie wrote: post #27

stashpro wrote: post #24

That's a lot of fuzz for an active bug with a very easy workaround.

I didn't see a workaround, can you elaborate?