481–490 of 495 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but the timing of the news could possibly end them in court. Had they done this months ago, they'd likely have not had a problem. But 4 days before CS5's release? I could see that adobe has already filed suit.
could apple then sue them back because they're talking about something that is still under nda?
Once out there, Adobe was likely under no obligation to not talk about it.
Hey lookie there, I can return this iPad still. I'll go buy a second android phone for my Development shop. Great Job Apple!
Sounds like a grea business decision
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If the cross-platform experience is subpar, Apple should just let these apps fail in the market" Perhaps, like Nintendo, they learned the lessons from the collapse of the home video game market in 1983. When Nintendo was contemplating developing the NES, they took a deep look at what had caused the collapse. What they concluded was that the main cause of death was the market being flooded with too many crappy games.…
Great post, but I'll disagree on one point. (First my credentials: I was an avid player of Atari 2600 games at the time, so I remember the period in question first-hand.) My take is not that there was a decline in quality due to any sort of technical reason, it was due to a drop in the quality of the gameplay design and playtesting. That, in turn, I'm guessing was due to the number of Atari 2600 game creators increas…
Far from ideal, but it may be the best solution at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"At the very least, you're a more dedicated developer" What a rose-tinted way to describe lock-in.
this is all about controlling the quality of applications, its is good, congrats to apple, they want to controll the quality of their applis by forcing people to code in a low level structure, they are right, high level abstractions when badly coded are a mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great platform it may be, but this rule is insane. Who cares how the compiled code was produced? What matters is how it runs on the platform.
OK. I come from a different background of programming than traditional consumer apps. In my "normal" job, I get a very small white list of programming languages. "C", "C++" (but no templates, multiple inheritance, no operator over-loading), "ADA", Assembly. Within each of these areas I am not allowed specific features. Recursion. OMG. I did that once and never again. Big nono. Even a simple things like: if (A && B) {…
We tend to frown on loops and mutating variables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. I come from a different background of programming than traditional consumer apps. In my "normal" job, I get a very small white list of programming languages. "C", "C++" (but no templates, multiple inheritance, no operator over-loading), "ADA", Assembly. Within each of these areas I am not allowed specific features. Recursion. OMG. I did that once and never again. Big nono. Even a simple things like: if (A && B) {…
Programming isn't a game for many people, it's a profession. The time you spend on learning their platform and languages are sunk costs, and you need to recoup them through money-making products. By restricting developers to their APIs and languages, they are trying to lock in developers and users. Apple is trying to accomplish the same kind of lock-in that Microsoft managed with Windows. And we better nip this thing…
As a long time Mac user, I've experienced a lot of Mac applications that have been straight ports from other platforms and they are, for the most part, pretty awful. I can understand from this why Apple wants its developers to code iApps natively.
This 'lock in' makes perfect sense for Apple in other ways too, ways in which end users and developers will benefit. Imagine that Apple allow apps to be ported from Flash. Developers would stop coding natively for iPhone OS as they would be able to create their apps in Flash and distribute them as web apps at the same time, reaching a greater audience. Then add in Android, Blackberry & other export options for Flash. Soon enough Flash would be the only IDE in use and platforms such as iPhone OS would be at the mercy of Adobe. If Apple were to introduce new features and efficiencies to their hardware and APIs, they would have to wait for Adobe to implement them in its Flash translation layer before the features would really become available to end users. Even the most willing and motivated of developers would not be able to get around that, they would have to wait for Adobe. So in the end, Apple would lose sales and credibility, and good developers would get screwed because they wouldn't be able to out pace their competitors in updating their apps to take advantage of new features. Everyone becomes 'locked in' to Adobe. Given Adobe's poor history when it comes to timely bug fixes and support of its OS X applications, I do not think that this 'lock in' would be a nice place to find yourself, whether you're Apple, a developer or an end user.
If you don't like Apple's stance then develop for other platforms and buy other products. But if you want to be in on the action, then accept the rules as they are not unreasonable and will ultimately benefit everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, all widely-used C compilers I am aware of have extensions to the C90 and C99 standards, which they accept as conformant code by default.
Sure, and that's fine. What Apple is doing is saying, "you must use C" without actually defining what "C" is.
Sure there is an ideal, but practically, there is not consistent definition of the C language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been a very loyal mac user for years and love it, but I'm seriously considering going back to Linux. I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness, but this is getting absolutely insane. Enforcing which LANGUAGES can be used on a platform?!? Insane! Edit: I've been looking at these guys: http://www.system76.com/ (I don't work with or have any vested interest in them, but they look cool.)
I have a Starling Netbook from system76. Nothing to write home about, but I've had few, if any real problems with it. It's a little flimsy, physically. And I am a proud free software zealot, so I moved it to debian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, and that's fine. What Apple is doing is saying, "you must use C" without actually defining what "C" is.
There was a hacker news discussion a while back by one of the principals of Coverity in which they asserted, with no small experience, that there is no such thing as a C language. This is due to the wide number of variations in what compilers accept and that users of C compilers expect. Sure there is an ideal, but practically, there is not consistent definition of the C language.