Disappointed to see that it's Windows only.
Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
31–40 of 58 posts
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#32Am I the only one who finds the UI is horribly ugly? The tabs make no sense. Why is it all hogging the ide space when most of the things are rarely used (services, build) - why not put them in the menu?
Products likes these are what give HTML5 a bad name.
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#33It's a good idea and apparently a slick package, but useless due to the restrictive license and binary-only distribution. I certainly won't build and distribute mobile apps with whatever obscure (and non-removable according to ToS) "security features" Intel has decided to bundle with the runtime e.g. to comply with arbitrary requests by various rogue government agencies. If they want us to build HTML5 apps for their…
Completely agree with the open sourcing part. It looks like they want to create HTML5 app for their own sake.
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#34I love the Linux support, but why the IDE theme is so ugly?
Not just the theme. The alignment, layout, heavy use of text everywhere is just off-putting.
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#35If you're curious why Intel is making an HTML5 IDE and what their goals are, you can check out this blog post: http://software.intel.com/en-us/html5/blogs/why-intel-xdk-ne...
Maybe it's because web apps perform so badly on ARM: http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-mobile-web-apps-are-slow...
That's really because web apps are just slow.
Intel mistakenly believe that they'll have an easier time by forcing ARM to compete at full speed, which is brilliantly ignorant of history. The very first ARM outperformed contemporary x86s at computation, and just happened to be low power, it's that they've been diverted off into low power as their reason for existing for 20 years.
ARM can, and will, redefine their instruction set dramatically to suit their needs at any time, so while the x86 world is stuck with x86 the mobile world has been through several major changes to the ARM ISA since just the original iPhone.
The Intel PR has persistently been saying "but our next one" for the last few years, and each time it's gone nowhere. They are merely performing the role of a stick device makers can hit ARM with to control prices though, but seem oblivious to this.
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#36Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#37Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#38Am I the only one who finds the UI is horribly ugly? The tabs make no sense. Why is it all hogging the ide space when most of the things are rarely used (services, build) - why not put them in the menu? Products likes these are what give HTML5 a bad name.
Yeah is ugly and dated and the users experience is not there, i don't know why a big company like Intel doesn't know that the first layer of conversion is the design. Make thing pretty and pleasant to use before launch!.
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#39It's a good idea and apparently a slick package, but useless due to the restrictive license and binary-only distribution. I certainly won't build and distribute mobile apps with whatever obscure (and non-removable according to ToS) "security features" Intel has decided to bundle with the runtime e.g. to comply with arbitrary requests by various rogue government agencies. If they want us to build HTML5 apps for their…
Can you please explain what the restrictive licences and "binary-only distribution" are in layman's terms. I'm a front end developer this looks like a good introduction to developing and distributing mobile apps.
How will the ToS hinder me from doing so?
Re: Intel XDK: An HTML5 development IDE
#40It's a good idea and apparently a slick package, but useless due to the restrictive license and binary-only distribution. I certainly won't build and distribute mobile apps with whatever obscure (and non-removable according to ToS) "security features" Intel has decided to bundle with the runtime e.g. to comply with arbitrary requests by various rogue government agencies. If they want us to build HTML5 apps for their…
Can you please explain what the restrictive licences and "binary-only distribution" are in layman's terms. I'm a front end developer this looks like a good introduction to developing and distributing mobile apps. How will the ToS hinder me from doing so?
For a complete analysis you'll have to ask a lawyer. But for me, the fact that you "may not reverse-assemble, reverse-compile, or otherwise reverse-engineer any portion of the Intel Materials provided solely in binary form" (http://appcenter.html5tools-software.intel.com/TOS/, see II.2.C) is enough of a red flag already. I'm not going to use or distribute something to my users for which I signed away my rights to examine and see what it actually does.
Furthermore, they want the right to disable access to some content somehow if they think it is illegal (i.e. they have rights to arbitrary censorship of content and apparently also some mechanism built into the runtime to enforce it). Am I going to distribute or even sell stuff to users that Intel can disable any time they like? Certainly not.
If they wanted a license that puts off developers who have plenty of choices nowdays, they succeeded.