subject:"Check out Jerry's new videos \-\- REV to ObjC \- iPhone"

Josh,

The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code libraries. They 
don't. They want to outlaw cross platform development. The point is why try and 
go around this process by creating a Rev to C tool, when it's likely they can 
identify the resulting binaries? It's still against their terms.

I would think it unwise for RR to invest significantly more development dollars 
to try and skirt around the rules. Obviously Adobe felt the same way.

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 10, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Josh Mellicker j...@dvcreators.net wrote:

 True. Even if I programmed everything in Xcode, exactly as Apple wanted, but 
 reused my own C libraries I created in Xcode, they could ban my apps due to 
 the repeated code (fingerprint).
 
 They could ban a drawing app because, conceivably, you might draw porn with 
 it, or for any other reason.
 
 Cheers,
 Josh
 
 On May 9, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Brian Yennie bri...@qldlearning.com wrote:
 
 Josh,
 
 Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would 
 inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple 
 could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.
 
 
 
 On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, J. Landman Gay jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
 wrote:
 
 Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
 
 RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
 Strange choice as for me.
 Main engine should go to C,
 Some parts of REV project also to C
 And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
 
 This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All 
 work must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
 
 Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
 there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
 Text is text.
 
 I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures 
 that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk 
 expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there 
 would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned 
 items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using 
 the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Bob Sneidar

Really?? That is what Apple wants? Honestly people. You don't have to sell 
products in France. But if you do, you will have to abide by their rules. It's 
no good arguing that France is the only place your widgets sell, or that 
creating a market in Germany is too hard. Rulz is rulz. If you don't like it, 
don't develop for the iPhone/iPad. 

Bob


On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

 Josh,
 
 The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code libraries. They 
 don't. They want to outlaw cross platform development. 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread René Micout

!!??

Le 10 mai 2010 à 18:59, Bob Sneidar a écrit :

 Really?? That is what Apple wants? Honestly people. You don't have to sell 
 products in France. But if you do, you will have to abide by their rules. 
 It's no good arguing that France is the only place your widgets sell, or that 
 creating a market in Germany is too hard. Rulz is rulz. If you don't like it, 
 don't develop for the iPhone/iPad. 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece, on the subject.

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:

 Really?? That is what Apple wants?
 
 
 On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
 
 Josh,
 
 The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code libraries. They 
 don't. They want to outlaw cross platform development. 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread René Micout

All the arguments in the article are that I regret about the weakness of RunRev 
to treat the Macintosh interface. For me it's a very big handicap. I never 
understood the principle of cross-platform (except of course for some 
developers to amortize their work). But, and I've said here, is a race to the 
bottom ...
Sorry for Windows (or Linux) afficionados...
René

Le 10 mai 2010 à 19:14, Chipp Walters a écrit :

 Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece, on the 
 subject.
 
 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Richard Gaskin


Chipp Walters wrote:

 On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
 The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code
 libraries. They don't. They want to outlaw cross platform
 development.

 On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Bob Sneidar bobs at twft.com wrote:
 Really?? That is what Apple wants?

 Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece,
 on the subject.

 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311

And from Mr. Jobs himself; the public spanking he gave Adobe linked to 
from the front page of apple.com applies to all cross-platform developers:


We know from painful experience that letting a third party
layer of software come between the platform and the developer
ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the
enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow
dependent on third party development libraries and tools,
they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and
when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We
cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when
they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross
platform development tool. The third party may not adopt
enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all
of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access
to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we
cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using
our innovations and enhancements because they are not available
on our competitor’s platforms.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

To the degree that those arguments apply at all to iPhone OS, they could 
also apply to OS X as well.


But fortunately they don't hold much water under closer examination, as 
has been pointed out across the blogosphere and as many of us know from 
personal experience:


1. Without such cross-platform tools a minority OS might never have any 
apps at all across entire categories that are useful to its customers.


2. When an app that was written in Objective-C breaks, the motivation to 
address it promptly is only as strong as the sole developer's personal 
interest in it, but when a cross-platform tool has a bug there are 
thousands of developers demanding an immediate fix from the vendor of 
the tool they made it with.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Randall Lee Reetz

Not true at all... Apple just needs access to source to insure safety and 
control over revenue schemes.  If adobe would have opened its tech to 
inspection, apple would have welcomed it.  What matters is the platform 
maintaining ultimate control and access over use and content channels.  Does 
runrev want to compete at that level?  No.  So what is the problem?  Let apple 
in.  Give them what they want.  Access to standardized source code.  Certainly 
runrev would ask the same.

Randall

-Original Message-
From: Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:33 AM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Chipp Walters wrote:

  On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
  The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code
  libraries. They don't. They want to outlaw cross platform
  development.
 
  On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Bob Sneidar bobs at twft.com wrote:
  Really?? That is what Apple wants?
 
  Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece,
  on the subject.
 
  http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311

And from Mr. Jobs himself; the public spanking he gave Adobe linked to 
from the front page of apple.com applies to all cross-platform developers:

 We know from painful experience that letting a third party
 layer of software come between the platform and the developer
 ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the
 enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow
 dependent on third party development libraries and tools,
 they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and
 when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We
 cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when
 they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

 This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross
 platform development tool. The third party may not adopt
 enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all
 of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access
 to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we
 cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using
 our innovations and enhancements because they are not available
 on our competitors platforms.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

To the degree that those arguments apply at all to iPhone OS, they could 
also apply to OS X as well.

But fortunately they don't hold much water under closer examination, as 
has been pointed out across the blogosphere and as many of us know from 
personal experience:

1. Without such cross-platform tools a minority OS might never have any 
apps at all across entire categories that are useful to its customers.

2. When an app that was written in Objective-C breaks, the motivation to 
address it promptly is only as strong as the sole developer's personal 
interest in it, but when a cross-platform tool has a bug there are 
thousands of developers demanding an immediate fix from the vendor of 
the tool they made it with.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
  revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Neal Campbell

Being a developer who makes his living at it (like many of us do), I develop
on platforms that make me the most money, period. To date, thats Windows.
While there is opportunity to make money on mobile devices, I think that
opportunity for me is more of a n-tiered solution where the mobile device is
solely a UI to the server(s) solution. I absolutely hate almost all of
Microsoft's architecture, it smacks of being designed by a room full of
monkeys (sri if I slandered any monkeys out there) but its so overladen with
layers of junk just to get something done.

Apple's archiectural designs are so elegant and clean they just invite you
to use them. But, I would rather have my toenails trimmed with a machete by
a room full of Microsoft architects than to code in Objective C. Its not I
cannot do it (as I have), its that I don't like it.

When the iPhone craze hit 2 years ago, my sincerest hope was that it would
foster other native-appearing alternatives to ObjC since the developers were
having to use Macs for iPhone development and we could get some non-objC
koolaid. Almost bought a commercial license of QT even though I  hate C++
almost as much as ObjC, In fact, I put my money on mono which allowed me to
use my windows skills everywhere. But the sad fact is the establishment of
cross-platform frameworks would bring some many new applications to OS X
that it would ignite that platform. But by making the iphone/ipad platform
closed to anyone but objC coders, he has starved off this flood of OS X
innovation.

He has chosen what my former CEO called the precisely irrelevant solution,
looking to have 100% of the latest features present in any application
instead of the meaningfully approximate of 85% and many more entries on
their platform. By staying pure, he will experience what happens with an
exclusionary policy. Its language apartheid.


Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal Software
www.abrohamnealsoftware.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Bob Sneidar

Oh I see. I think it was the word outlaw that tripped me up. I guess if you 
see the iPad as an asset belonging to all of us, you would get the feeling that 
Apple is outlawing cross platform development. But I don't think any iPad but 
the one I buy belongs to me or anyone else. 

I don't see what Apple is doing as being monopolistic or engaging in 
Anti-trust. What they are trying to discourage is using tools to develop apps 
that can dramatically change the look and feel of their device, or affect 
stability, or lend themselves to obsolescence, or worse yet, to hinder 
advancements in the iPhone OS. Anyone remember how many times Microsoft said 
they were done with DOS, or how long Windows had to deal with the restrictions 
of the old hardware PC spec? Ball and chain comes to my mind. 

Like I said in another post, what would have happened if many of the apps 
originally written for the iPhone were so buggy they were causing kernel 
crashes all the time? Who would get the blame? Apple of course. Any attempt to 
defend themselves would have been deemed finger pointing. I for one am happy 
that we have building codes requiring building contractors to comply with 
ordinances. It means that the 6 story I work in is not coming down to the 
ground with just any old earthquake. I think of Apple's control over the 
software that ends up running on the iPhone exactly like those building codes. 

Bob


On May 10, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

 Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece, on the 
 subject.
 
 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311
 
 Chipp Walters
 CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc
 
 On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:
 
 Really?? That is what Apple wants?
 
 
 On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
 
 Josh,
 
 The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code libraries. They 
 don't. They want to outlaw cross platform development. 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Andre Garzia

Bob,

You can still break iPhone OS writting Objective-C...

If you or jobs doubt that, I invite you guys to look at my own ObjC
developments. I can break any hardware.

Now, they are mixing correlation with causation. Cross platform is not the
bad guy here, poor programmers are. One can write good cross platform
software respecting everything from UIs to Memory Management stuff. Cross
platform software can be a good citizen. Poor programmers can screw any
machine no matter the language used.

silly apple.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:

 Oh I see. I think it was the word outlaw that tripped me up. I guess if
 you see the iPad as an asset belonging to all of us, you would get the
 feeling that Apple is outlawing cross platform development. But I don't
 think any iPad but the one I buy belongs to me or anyone else.

 I don't see what Apple is doing as being monopolistic or engaging in
 Anti-trust. What they are trying to discourage is using tools to develop
 apps that can dramatically change the look and feel of their device, or
 affect stability, or lend themselves to obsolescence, or worse yet, to
 hinder advancements in the iPhone OS. Anyone remember how many times
 Microsoft said they were done with DOS, or how long Windows had to deal with
 the restrictions of the old hardware PC spec? Ball and chain comes to my
 mind.

 Like I said in another post, what would have happened if many of the apps
 originally written for the iPhone were so buggy they were causing kernel
 crashes all the time? Who would get the blame? Apple of course. Any attempt
 to defend themselves would have been deemed finger pointing. I for one am
 happy that we have building codes requiring building contractors to comply
 with ordinances. It means that the 6 story I work in is not coming down to
 the ground with just any old earthquake. I think of Apple's control over the
 software that ends up running on the iPhone exactly like those building
 codes.

 Bob


 On May 10, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

  Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece, on the
 subject.
 
  http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311
 
  Chipp Walters
  CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc
 
  On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:
 
  Really?? That is what Apple wants?
 
 
  On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
 
  Josh,
 
  The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code libraries.
 They don't. They want to outlaw cross platform development.
  ___
  use-revolution mailing list
  use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
  Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
  http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution




-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Bob, 

You're more than welcome to your opinion as an Apple apologist-- though I would 
say your timing right now is probably not the best. I disagree with just about 
everything you say. You obviously haven't been following our discussion here 
over the past few weeks where all of your points have been addressed. I have 
documented my discussion fairly well at the blogs:

http://shaferwaltersgroup.posterous.com/
and
http://chippwalters.posterous.com/

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 10, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:

 Oh I see. I think it was the word outlaw that tripped me up. I guess if you 
 see the iPad as an asset belonging to all of us, you would get the feeling 
 that Apple is outlawing cross platform development. But I don't think any 
 iPad but the one I buy belongs to me or anyone else. 
 
 I don't see what Apple is doing as being monopolistic or engaging in 
 Anti-trust. What they are trying to discourage is using tools to develop apps 
 that can dramatically change the look and feel of their device, or affect 
 stability, or lend themselves to obsolescence, or worse yet, to hinder 
 advancements in the iPhone OS. Anyone remember how many times Microsoft said 
 they were done with DOS, or how long Windows had to deal with the 
 restrictions of the old hardware PC spec? Ball and chain comes to my mind. 
 
 Like I said in another post, what would have happened if many of the apps 
 originally written for the iPhone were so buggy they were causing kernel 
 crashes all the time? Who would get the blame? Apple of course. Any attempt 
 to defend themselves would have been deemed finger pointing. I for one am 
 happy that we have building codes requiring building contractors to comply 
 with ordinances. It means that the 6 story I work in is not coming down to 
 the ground with just any old earthquake. I think of Apple's control over the 
 software that ends up running on the iPhone exactly like those building 
 codes. 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Scott Rossi

Recently, Bob Sneidar wrote:

 I don't see what Apple is doing as being monopolistic or engaging in
 Anti-trust. What they are trying to discourage is using tools to develop apps
 that can dramatically change the look and feel of their device, or affect
 stability, or lend themselves to obsolescence, or worse yet, to hinder
 advancements in the iPhone OS.

I would say denying developers tools of their choice will probably do a good
enough job of hindering advancement of iPhone OS.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, UX Design


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Randall Lee Reetz

Thank you...  Well said.

-Original Message-
From: Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:09 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Oh I see. I think it was the word outlaw that tripped me up. I guess if you 
see the iPad as an asset belonging to all of us, you would get the feeling that 
Apple is outlawing cross platform development. But I don't think any iPad but 
the one I buy belongs to me or anyone else. 

I don't see what Apple is doing as being monopolistic or engaging in 
Anti-trust. What they are trying to discourage is using tools to develop apps 
that can dramatically change the look and feel of their device, or affect 
stability, or lend themselves to obsolescence, or worse yet, to hinder 
advancements in the iPhone OS. Anyone remember how many times Microsoft said 
they were done with DOS, or how long Windows had to deal with the restrictions 
of the old hardware PC spec? Ball and chain comes to my mind. 

Like I said in another post, what would have happened if many of the apps 
originally written for the iPhone were so buggy they were causing kernel 
crashes all the time? Who would get the blame? Apple of course. Any attempt to 
defend themselves would have been deemed finger pointing. I for one am happy 
that we have building codes requiring building contractors to comply with 
ordinances. It means that the 6 story I work in is not coming down to the 
ground with just any old earthquake. I think of Apple's control over the 
software that ends up running on the iPhone exactly like those building codes. 

Bob

On May 10, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

 Here's the guy Steve Jobs likes to point out is his mouthpiece, on the 
 subject.

 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311

 Chipp Walters
 CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

 On May 10, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Bob Sneidar b...@twft.com wrote:

 Really?? That is what Apple wants?

 On May 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

 Josh,

 The issue isn't whether Apple wants to outlaw reusing code libraries. They 
 don't. They want to outlaw cross platform development. 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Lynn Fredricks

 Like I said in another post, what would have happened if many 
 of the apps originally written for the iPhone were so buggy 
 they were causing kernel crashes all the time? Who would get 
 the blame? Apple of course. Any attempt to defend themselves 
 would have been deemed finger pointing.

I don't want to dig into this snowball but I have first hand experience with
this on Mac OS.

Apple isn't shy about blaming the developer at all. When I was at Now, and
later at Qualcomm peddling Eudora, I had first hand knowledge of Apple
support blaming bugginess on the developer, no matter what the cause. Later
when those early, very lame releases of Mac OS X were released and an
application caused havok, it was the vendor's fault, not that the underlying
structure changing so radically from a .# to .#.

Apple finger points just fine if they think its necessary.

There is a less draconian solution. Make it possible to install non App
Store apps, but have all the restrictions apply to App Store apps. That way,
if Apple is right and non tested/non conforming apps are so bad, then
customers will only buy from the App Store. That lets the customer and the
market decide. App Store apps can even live in a different partition to keep
them separate from dirty, filthy non conforming apps, so that they could
survive a hardware reset.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
Mirye Software Publishing
http://www.mirye.com



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone -[OT] Now

You were at Now? What a great company. Now-Up-To-Date was the best group
calendar our company ever used. And Boomerang hasn't seen it's match since!

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Lynn Fredricks 
lfredri...@proactive-intl.com wrote:

 When I was at Now,

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Bob Sneidar

You worked for Now Software? That is in my opinion one of the best software 
companies I ever had dealings with. I really loved their Contact/Up-To-Date. 

Concerning my prior posts, I had been operating on the assumption that Steve 
Jobs was making reasonable decisions based on concerns about compatibility, 
stability and longevity, but after his recent rejection of the proposal that 
Runrev has made, I don't think that way anymore. I think Steve Jobs is falling 
into that trap where people think absolute control results in some kind of 
utopia. I think he is wrong. 

Cooperation, and all the evils and good that come along with it is the only way 
he is going to progress the platform. Otherwise Apple really is going to become 
another Microsoft. 

Bob


On May 10, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Lynn Fredricks wrote:

 Like I said in another post, what would have happened if many 
 of the apps originally written for the iPhone were so buggy 
 they were causing kernel crashes all the time? Who would get 
 the blame? Apple of course. Any attempt to defend themselves 
 would have been deemed finger pointing.
 
 I don't want to dig into this snowball but I have first hand experience with
 this on Mac OS.
 
 Apple isn't shy about blaming the developer at all. When I was at Now, and
 later at Qualcomm peddling Eudora, I had first hand knowledge of Apple
 support blaming bugginess on the developer, no matter what the cause. Later
 when those early, very lame releases of Mac OS X were released and an
 application caused havok, it was the vendor's fault, not that the underlying
 structure changing so radically from a .# to .#.
 
 Apple finger points just fine if they think its necessary.
 
 There is a less draconian solution. Make it possible to install non App
 Store apps, but have all the restrictions apply to App Store apps. That way,
 if Apple is right and non tested/non conforming apps are so bad, then
 customers will only buy from the App Store. That lets the customer and the
 market decide. App Store apps can even live in a different partition to keep
 them separate from dirty, filthy non conforming apps, so that they could
 survive a hardware reset.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Lynn Fredricks
 Mirye Software Publishing
 http://www.mirye.com
 
 
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone -[OT] Now

2010-05-10 Thread Lynn Fredricks

 You were at Now? What a great company. Now-Up-To-Date was the 
 best group calendar our company ever used. And Boomerang 
 hasn't seen it's match since!

It was a great company. I was international sales manager there, then after
it was acquired by Qualcomm, went over and did my thing there. Sadly, a few
years later Qualcomm sold it all off to a new Now Software. They never got
a successor out the door and ended up closing earlier this year.

The laid back Portland culture didn't quite mesh with Qualcomm. There was a
time during a mass staff phone conference (team in San Diego, team in
Portland) on a Friday when a tech writer came into the room announcing Oh
yeah, the keg is here!, while rolling in the Beer Bash Friday keg (a
forbidden practice at qualcomm). 

A VP on the other end said what was that?

Then a marketing guy in Portland said Yeah, the *cake* is here - its Greg's
birthday!

So the SD team sang Greg a Happy Birthday song as we lined up with our
plastic cups...

What is funny is the very last release of Now Utilities actually came from
my own budget. We had a bunch of fixes made to placate our Japanese friends
who sold NU-J. Qualcomm sat on the English version for over a year until
they finally got around to releasing it to the world. I was long gone at
that point.

Now was quite close to Apple back then. Good times indeed.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
Mirye Software Publishing
http://www.mirye.com

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-10 Thread Lynn Fredricks

 Concerning my prior posts, I had been operating on the 
 assumption that Steve Jobs was making reasonable decisions 
 based on concerns about compatibility, stability and 
 longevity, but after his recent rejection of the proposal 
 that Runrev has made, I don't think that way anymore. I think 
 Steve Jobs is falling into that trap where people think 
 absolute control results in some kind of utopia. I think he is wrong. 

He's a smart, smart guy - nobody is infallible though.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
Mirye Software Publishing
http://www.mirye.com

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Ruslan Zasukhin

On 9/5/10 1:56 AM, Randall Lee Reetz rand...@randallreetz.com wrote:

 That runrev could export C source would in no way interfere with the ongoing
 activity of runrev users (should they choose not to export their stacks into C
 source).
 
 The capacity to output C SOURCE WOULD OPEN THE REACH OF REV USERS TO ALMOST
 ANY PLATFORM AND IN A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL.  CODE COMPILED IN C RUNS WAY WAY WAY
 FASTER IN ALMOST ALL SITUATIONS.  BYTE CODE IS SLOW IN COMPARISON.
 INTERPRETED EVEN MORE SO.  (SORRY ABOUT THE UPPERCASE... MY PHONE IS STUCK).

Hi guys,

I have miss start of this thread about videos,
But it seems here is discussed

REV to C/C++  or Obj-C


And I want say - YES this looks for me as the best choice for REV.
Why not?

And this can open way to iPhone as I understand.

RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
Strange choice as for me.

Main engine should go to C,
Some parts of REV project also to C
And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.

In this way you don't break iPhone OS v4 license.


And it is possible to automate in background full process:
generation of sources, xcode project,
compile and link true iphone APP.
all in tmp folder ..
all by single click BUILD in REV.

I do not see technical problems her.




-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread J. Landman Gay


Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:


RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
Strange choice as for me.

Main engine should go to C,
Some parts of REV project also to C
And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.



This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All 
work must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


Le 9 mai 2010 à 08:28, J. Landman Gay a écrit :

 This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work 
 must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.

This is outside my powers of comprehension... Both points of view technical (if 
it is possible...), ethical and juridical (legal ?), I don't understand (I 
can't understand ?)... Is this a cultural problem ? Is this a linguistic 
problem ;-) ?
What mean translations ? What mean originally ?
I mentioned this in another post and some have understood (and approved) my 
point of view...
The above argument is invariably advanced, but is it an Apple's argument ?
My job is, in another, write specifications for contracts, and what I read 
about (because I could not read directly concerned §) in § 3.3.1 does not seem 
admissible in France's legal perspective. In France the law is above the 
contract, perhaps is it different in the USA (?).
The debate remains open on the subject( I apologize to those who are not 
interested in the subject) keeps coming back (is it a manifestation of eternal 
return dear to Nietzsche?)...
René___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Peter Alcibiades

Rene, it is really quite simple what is happening.

Apple has an App Store. As part of the license for the OS that runs on the
device, you are allowed to install apps only from that App store. They then
say that only Apps written in certain ways will be allowed into the App
store.

They can set whatever conditions they want, on both of these topics, subject
to the conditions on contract law in general in a given jurisdiction. Any
conditions which are deemed by the courts to be contractually enforceable
can be set both on whether you can install apps from other places than the
app store, and whether you can write apps in other languages than the ones
specified. In addition, they do not have to list anything they do not feel
like listing in their App store. This is just the way the law is in the US.

In addition to the contractual restrictions which you are deemed to enter
into, if an end user by accepting the license terms on first use, or if a
developer by entering into the development agreement, there is another
underlying issue. That is that it is well established in US law that to
load a program, any program, is to make a copy of it. When you do that, you
require permission from the copyright holder, who may place conditions on
that permission. Now, there are exemptions from this, if you have purchased
a copy, and it is a program, you then may make such copies as are essential
to use it. But while this may get you past modifications for your own use,
the exemptions do not allow you to modify and then pass on. So you can do
it for yourself, you cannot do it as a business.

There is little point arguing or puzzling over the legal aspects of this.
They probably can, absent decisive action on competition grounds, specify
both whether you may jailbreak the devices, and what languages you use to
develop for them, so they probably do have the legal power to enforce the
lockdown. And anyway, jailbreaking is sort of academic. its not going to
happen on any scale big enough to create an interesting market.

You notice how similar the case is to the different issue of whether you may
buy a retail copy of OSX and install it on a white box. The underlying
issue is whether a company can specify things about how their product can be
used, after they have sold it, and restrict use on purely contractual rather
than technical grounds. It is a can of worms, especially in all the
different EC jurisdictions, but in the short term, and certainly in the US,
the argument is basically over - for all practical financial purposes.

I would stop worrying about the legalese, the cans and can'ts. They almost
certainly can, at least in the short term. Rodeo is a practical answer to a
contractual problem that you're not going to get any other solution to, in
time for it to make much financial difference to you.

Peter
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Check-out-Jerry-s-new-videos-tp2135722p2164329.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:

 
 What mean translations ? What mean originally ?

Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
(ask What is your name for example), you've gone against the license 
agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens at 
runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Have you the exact terms of the license? I could not read the license agreement 
to iPhone SDK 4.0 as is usually the case when opening an application and I 
found nothing on the Apple site. I would like, to understand what it is, 
consider the exact terms of this license and if possible in French. Where can I 
get this document?
Thank you
Rene

Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :

 
 On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
 
 
 What mean translations ? What mean originally ?
 
 Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
 (ask What is your name for example), you've gone against the license 
 agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
 approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens at 
 runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
 
 
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Is this correct ? iPhone SDK license 4.0 version ? :
3.3.1   Applications may only use Published APIs in the manner prescribed by 
Apple and must not use or call any unpublished or private APIs.
3.3.2   An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code 
by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in 
architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted 
code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is 
interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built- in interpreter(s).
3.3.3   Without Apple’s prior written approval, an Application may not provide, 
unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution 
mechanisms other than the App Store.
3.3.4   An Application may write data on a device only to the Application's 
designated container area, except as otherwise specified by Apple.

Le 9 mai 2010 à 14:09, René Micout a écrit :

 Have you the exact terms of the license? I could not read the license 
 agreement to iPhone SDK 4.0 as is usually the case when opening an 
 application and I found nothing on the Apple site. I would like, to 
 understand what it is, consider the exact terms of this license and if 
 possible in French. Where can I get this document?
 Thank you
 Rene
 
 Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :
 
 
 On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
 
 
 What mean translations ? What mean originally ?
 
 Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
 (ask What is your name for example), you've gone against the license 
 agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
 approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens 
 at runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
 
 
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

The funny thing is that if you have signed the agreement, you can't talk about 
it! Only people who didn't sign can I suppose.

Here is an example page that talks about one of the parts of the agreement, in 
English:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

and translated to French:

http://bit.ly/aQcBY6


One very funny thing about the translation, I tried translating the text from 
French back to English, and there is a vital mistake that it makes. The last 
word in the 3.3.1 text is prohibited, and when translated from English to 
French and back again, it becomes allowed! If you read the French version, 
and you think that it is saying that translation layers are allowed, then 
that's a problem in the Google translation.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 8:21 AM, René Micout wrote:

 Is this correct ? iPhone SDK license 4.0 version ? :
 3.3.1 Applications may only use Published APIs in the manner prescribed by 
 Apple and must not use or call any unpublished or private APIs.

That's the old agreement, before the changes.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Thank you ! I have not signed the agreement...

Le 9 mai 2010 à 14:32, Colin Holgate a écrit :

 The funny thing is that if you have signed the agreement, you can't talk 
 about it! Only people who didn't sign can I suppose.
 
 Here is an example page that talks about one of the parts of the agreement, 
 in English:
 
 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
 
 and translated to French:
 
 http://bit.ly/aQcBY6
 
 
 One very funny thing about the translation, I tried translating the text from 
 French back to English, and there is a vital mistake that it makes. The last 
 word in the 3.3.1 text is prohibited, and when translated from English to 
 French and back again, it becomes allowed! If you read the French version, 
 and you think that it is saying that translation layers are allowed, then 
 that's a problem in the Google translation.
 
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 8:45 AM, René Micout wrote:

 Thank you ! I have not signed the agreement...

I have, that's why I gave you a link to a page, rather than simply pasting the 
text here!



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
• It is the node of the problem : in a precedent post I talk about a system 
witch allow to write in RevTalk the code of an application. This code is 
translated into Objective-C code. This Objective-C code is written (or 
copy-paste or if it not ethical acceptable enter char to char with my 
fingers...) into xCode and compile with it to make with interface (Interface 
Builder construction) the application. This application have no link with 
APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or other tool.
Am I clear ? Because some person (in this list) say to me : it is right, other 
persons say to me : it is a violation of the SDK 4.0.
If I can write all this in French, the things will be facter and easier for me 
... but not for you :-)

Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :

 
 On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
 
 
 What mean translations ? What mean originally ?
 
 Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
 (ask What is your name for example), you've gone against the license 
 agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
 approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens at 
 runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
 
 
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

But perhaps the ideal tool (RunRevMobile?) as I described is not technically 
feasible and it is another problem ... 

Le 9 mai 2010 à 15:05, René Micout a écrit :

 3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
 translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
 • It is the node of the problem : in a precedent post I talk about a system 
 witch allow to write in RevTalk the code of an application. This code is 
 translated into Objective-C code. This Objective-C code is written (or 
 copy-paste or if it not ethical acceptable enter char to char with my 
 fingers...) into xCode and compile with it to make with interface (Interface 
 Builder construction) the application. This application have no link with 
 APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or other tool.
 Am I clear ? Because some person (in this list) say to me : it is right, 
 other persons say to me : it is a violation of the SDK 4.0.
 If I can write all this in French, the things will be facter and easier for 
 me ... but not for you :-)
 
 Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :
 
 
 On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
 
 
 What mean translations ? What mean originally ?
 
 Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
 (ask What is your name for example), you've gone against the license 
 agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
 approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens 
 at runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
 
 
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
 
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Ian Wood



On 9 May 2010, at 14:05, René Micout wrote:

3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an  
intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are  
prohibited.


Again - that is the OLD version of 3.3.1. The new one is much more  
restrictive.


Ian

P.S. 
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

It is a part of § 3.3.1 of 4.0... I think... Colin ?
And if it is, this is the problematic line... I think...

Le 9 mai 2010 à 15:26, Ian Wood a écrit :

 
 On 9 May 2010, at 14:05, René Micout wrote:
 
 3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
 translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
 
 Again - that is the OLD version of 3.3.1. The new one is much more 
 restrictive.
 
 Ian
 
 P.S. 
 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Ian Wood wrote:

 3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
 translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
 
 Again - that is the OLD version of 3.3.1. The new one is much more 
 restrictive.


No, that's from the new one, he just cut off all the other parts of 3.3.1. It's 
that bit of 3.3.1 that affects tools like Rev the most, because without that 
part it might be feasible to have an Objective-C based engine, and a 
non-Objective-C scripting language to make it do what you want it to do.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Peter Alcibiades

Rene, this is the text in question:-

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed
by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the
iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C
may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g.,
Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary
translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

It may be difficult linguistically for non-native speakers, but to a native
speaker this is (mostly) clear and unambiguous. What it says is, your
application

-- must be originally written in the specified languages. This is perhaps
not totally precise, but it is going to allow you to sketch out your ideas
on paper in whatever you want, to do flow charts in whatever you want, but
it is not going to allow you to code in anything but the languages specified
and then translate into them. Things are 'originally written' in, for
instance, French, when this was the first version of the novel that was
written. Translations into English are not originally written in English.
It may seem hard to define exactly, but its clear to most people what does
and does not count as originally written.

-- in particular, with regard to Javascript, it is not just any sort of
javascript, it is only allowed to write originally in Javascript as
executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine. This means, your original
writing if in JS must be in this particular flavor of it.

-- It next says that you may not compile and link against the documented
APIs from anything but C, C++ and Objective-C. That is perfectly clear and
unambiguous. You may not arrive at the code in these languages from any
method but originally writing in them. Having got your code, you may
compile and link if and only if it is written in the approved languages.

In short, do not write originally in anything but the approved languages,
and if you do, do not compile and link against the APIs.

-- It finally says that Applications that link to Documented APIs through
an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
Now, this is a for example, so it is not exhaustive. But what it is telling
you is that you cannot use an intermediary translation tool. You cannot do
what you are trying to do.

What's the bottom line? You can write your C or C++ using whatever you
want. Eclipse or notepad, they do not care. But you will write C or C++ in
the editor or IDE of your choice. You will not write revtalk or anything
else, and have that translate into C.

The sentence is not perfectly clear in one respect, its not clear whether
compatibility qualifies tool, as well as layer. It could mean that you may
not use a compatibility layer or a compatibility tool to link to the APIs,
or it could be meant more widely, that you may not use a compatibility layer
or any kind of tool, not restricted to compatibility tools, to link to the
APIs. It makes no practical difference either way though.

Whatever, if you want to comply with the developer contract, this is
perfectly clear. It says you need to fire up your brain and start coding
either in:-

-- C

-- C++

-- Objective C

-- Javascript as executed by the iPhone OS Webkit engine.

There is really no doubt about what this means. As to whether its
enforceable, the answer is, in the short to medium term, undoubtedly.
Because there is an enforcement mechanism, they don't have to let your app
into the App store, and they don't have to give a reason for refusal. So
mere suspicion that you have done it in the wrong language and translated
it, will get your app barred. And they are not interested, they simply do
not care, if they ban some apps incorrectly. There is nothing you can do
about it. They do not even have to tell you what their reason was.

The only people who will change this will be the courts and the competition
regulators in the US. By the time they get around to it, and by the time a
settlement is worked out, if they overturn it, and by the time the
boundaries of that settlement are fixed, it will be too late for you as an
iPhone developer.

You have to understand that finding some way around the wording does not
help at all. Even if you were to find one, which you won't, you will just
get banned anyway for finding a way around and using it.

You want to develop for iPhone OS as a business, you now have two and only
two practical choices. One, get busy on C or iPhone Java.Two, develop
webapps as in Rodeo. The safest is probably flavors of C. The quickest is
probably Rodeo. Save time, and accept it.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Check-out-Jerry-s-new-videos-tp2135722p2164443.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

 Thank you Peter.
I understand all of that... :-)

Le 9 mai 2010 à 16:13, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :
 
  Things are 'originally written' in, for
 instance, French, when this was the first version of the novel that was
 written.  Translations into English are not originally written in English. 
 It may seem hard to define exactly, but its clear to most people what does
 and does not count as originally written.

In literrature there is case of a writer who write in a language et rewrite 
(himself) in another language (Nabokov by example)
 
 In short, do not write originally in anything but the approved languages,
 and if you do, do not compile and link against the APIs.
 
 -- It finally says that Applications that link to Documented APIs through
 an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited. 
 Now, this is a for example, so it is not exhaustive.  But what it is telling
 you is that you cannot use an intermediary translation tool.  You cannot do
 what you are trying to do. 
 
 What's the bottom line?  You can write your C or C++ using whatever you
 want.  Eclipse or notepad, they do not care.  But you will write C or C++ in
 the editor or IDE of your choice.  You will not write revtalk or anything
 else, and have that translate into C.  
 
Have you red my last posts (with the explanation of my method ;-) ?
 
 
 There is really no doubt about what this means.  As to whether its
 enforceable, the answer is, in the short to medium term, undoubtedly. 
 Because there is an enforcement mechanism, they don't have to let your app
 into the App store, and they don't have to give a reason for refusal.  So
 mere suspicion that you have done it in the wrong language and translated
 it, will get your app barred.  And they are not interested, they simply do
 not care, if they ban some apps incorrectly.  There is nothing you can do
 about it.  They do not even have to tell you what their reason was.
 
 The only people who will change this will be the courts and the competition
 regulators in the US.  By the time they get around to it, and by the time a
 settlement is worked out, if they overturn it, and by the time the
 boundaries of that settlement are fixed, it will be too late for you as an
 iPhone developer.

Yes I think also
 
 You have to understand that finding some way around the wording does not
 help at all.  Even if you were to find one, which you won't, you will just
 get banned anyway for finding a way around and using it.
 
 You want to develop for iPhone OS as a business, you now have two and only
 two practical choices.  One, get busy on C or iPhone Java.Two, develop
 webapps as in Rodeo.  The safest is probably flavors of C.  The quickest is
 probably Rodeo.  Save time, and accept it.
 
It's seems to be wise, indeed, I am interested in Rodeo but is seems 
complicated (!?)
Thank you again
Bon souvenir de Paris
René

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Lynn Fredricks

 My job is, in another, write specifications for contracts, 
 and what I read about (because I could not read directly 
 concerned §) in § 3.3.1 does not seem admissible in France's 
 legal perspective. In France the law is above the contract, 
 perhaps is it different in the USA (?)

The law is above the contract in the USA, but there isn't a magical force to
enforce contract laws in an equitable way. The law is perpetually playing
catch up (if congress even tries at all) with the tech industry.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Josh Mellicker




On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, J. Landman Gay  
jac...@hyperactivesw.com wrote:



Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:


RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
Strange choice as for me.
Main engine should go to C,
Some parts of REV project also to C
And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.


This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations.  
All work must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.


Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app  
there, there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written  
in Xcode. Text is text.


I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code  
structures that are so similar translation would be easy (if then,  
switch). Chunk expressions are an example of something that would not  
translate, so there would have to be a special set of handlers that  
split strings and returned items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call  
these functions rather than using the stock ones to make the C output  
feasible.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Chipp Walters

Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the 
consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify Flash 
apps created from C ported to Xcode.

The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they have 
to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries have unique 
footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is easy to conclude 
they are in violation of SDK 4.0.

And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot dot 
revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why this 
concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to develop on 
their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up. 

Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later 
someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev 
environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones and 
ipads.

My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I couldn't 
believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have it rejected 
based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they can pre-accept 
your idea and the final check is only a QA one. 

Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can change 
their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill your company 
plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you to what 
original programming language is used. Who ever heard of such draconian 
development terms?

Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business indeed. 

On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker j...@dvcreators.net wrote:

 Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
 there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
 Text is text.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way 
comparable in this context.

To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to build 
flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!  But the 
discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C source from rev 
stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the apple blessed IDE.  No 
harm, no foul, no secret sneak.

Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party 
protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and 
sketch helper tool.

Huge and incomparable difference!

Randall  

-Original Message-
From: Chipp Walters ch...@altuit.com
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:32 AM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the 
consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify Flash 
apps created from C ported to Xcode.

The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they have 
to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries have unique 
footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is easy to conclude 
they are in violation of SDK 4.0.

And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot dot 
revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why this 
concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to develop on 
their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up. 

Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later 
someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev 
environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones and 
ipads.

My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I couldn't 
believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have it rejected 
based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they can pre-accept 
your idea and the final check is only a QA one. 

Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can change 
their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill your company 
plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you to what 
original programming language is used. Who ever heard of such draconian 
development terms?

Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business indeed. 

On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker j...@dvcreators.net wrote:

 Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
 there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
 Text is text.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

I'm sure what was in his mind was the right way around, and it is true to say 
that Apple can tell ARM code Apps that were originally Flash. It's likely they 
could tell ones that were from Rev too.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Andre Garzia

Randall,

What you fail to see again despite our insistence to tell you is that such
tool to generate C code from Rev Stacks is precisely what is now forbidden
by the new agreement. I am beginning to think that you can actually speak
English or that my English is surprisingly awful because I've told you maybe
SEVEN TIMES THIS WEEK ALONE that the new agreement prohibits generating C
code from anything. The clause says originally written in Objective-C and
not Cross compiled into Objective-C.

The source of all this mayhem is the exact fact that we're legally bound to
an agreement that prevents using any kind of generator program. Generators
are not Apple Compliant no matter how many emails you send to this list,
they will still be illegal. No matter how many times we tell you that you
can't and you tell use that YES RANDALL CAN or that you know better, you
still can't. There's an agreement, a contract and developer sign that thing.
You can't go against an agreement not matter how much you dislike it.

As I've told you BEFORE IN ALL MY PREVIOUS FOUR EMAILS TO YOU (which I don't
think you read anyway, because you keep repeating) it is not a technical
problem, it is a legal problem. Right now, unless Apple calls Kevin and the
dialog goes like:

Steve: Yo, Sup?
Kevin: Sup, Steve, whats up?
Steve: I've seen RevMobile, launched it and BOOM in 10 minutes I got a
running iPad thingy. Which was wonderful. It really empowered me, since I
can't code in Objective-C either
Kevin: Oh, that's good to know. By the way Steve, thanks for this wonderful
oportunity to make your life easier. Is RevMobile allowed then?
Steve: Yes it is, oh, and one more thing, I think we should bundle RevMedia
with all new macs
Kevin: Thats bloody good, mate!

Unless the piece above happens, then, we CAN'T GENERATE ANYTHING and be
approved for the app store. I hope we're clear.

Now, since I am a nice chap and I don't believe you read my emails at all, I
am going to repeat myself in some other languages, maybe, one of those will
ring a bell and unlock your memory and you'll recall some days ago when I
said the precise same thing:

English: YOU CAN'T USE GENERATORS
Portuguese: VOCÊ NÃO PODE USAR GERADORES
Portunhol: USTED NON PUEDES UTILIZAR GERADORES

Thanks, I hope we're now over this subject.

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Randall Lee Reetz
rand...@randallreetz.comwrote:

 Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way
 comparable in this context.

 To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to
 build flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!
  But the discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C
 source from rev stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the
 apple blessed IDE.  No harm, no foul, no secret sneak.

 Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party
 protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and
 sketch helper tool.

 Huge and incomparable difference!

 Randall

 -Original Message-
 From: Chipp Walters ch...@altuit.com
 Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:32 AM
 To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

 Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the
 consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify
 Flash apps created from C ported to Xcode.

 The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they
 have to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries
 have unique footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is
 easy to conclude they are in violation of SDK 4.0.

 And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot
 dot revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why
 this concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to
 develop on their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up.

 Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later
 someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev
 environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones
 and ipads.

 My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I
 couldn't believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have
 it rejected based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they
 can pre-accept your idea and the final check is only a QA one.

 Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can
 change their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill
 your company plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you
 to what original programming language is used. Who ever heard of such
 draconian development terms?

 Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business
 indeed.

 On May 9

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
just want in before and during the compilation process.

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:04 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

I'm sure what was in his mind was the right way around, and it is true to say 
that Apple can tell ARM code Apps that were originally Flash. It's likely they 
could tell ones that were from Rev too.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
is to control the compiling process.  That way they know what their devices 
will be running.  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level 
of control.  What you guys are afraid of isn't being expressed openly and 
honestly but it has nothing to do with apple's dictates.

-Original Message-
From: Andre Garzia an...@andregarzia.com
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:09 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Randall,

What you fail to see again despite our insistence to tell you is that such
tool to generate C code from Rev Stacks is precisely what is now forbidden
by the new agreement. I am beginning to think that you can actually speak
English or that my English is surprisingly awful because I've told you maybe
SEVEN TIMES THIS WEEK ALONE that the new agreement prohibits generating C
code from anything. The clause says originally written in Objective-C and
not Cross compiled into Objective-C.

The source of all this mayhem is the exact fact that we're legally bound to
an agreement that prevents using any kind of generator program. Generators
are not Apple Compliant no matter how many emails you send to this list,
they will still be illegal. No matter how many times we tell you that you
can't and you tell use that YES RANDALL CAN or that you know better, you
still can't. There's an agreement, a contract and developer sign that 
thing___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
 just want in before and during the compilation process.


They are trying to dictate precompiled source. That's the whole problem.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Josh Mellicker

I was just speaking of a simple text parser and term search and  
replace. Certainly not worth the effort, it would be easier to just  
write in Xcode!


While you're correct about the dangers of writing for Apple, some  
developers continue to risk it because the potential  is in some cases  
quite large.


Cheers,
Josh

On May 9, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Chipp Walters ch...@altuit.com wrote:

Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs  
and the consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a  
tool to identify Flash apps created from C ported to Xcode.


The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code,  
they have to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C  
libraries have unique footprints which can easily be detected. Once  
detected, it is easy to conclude they are in violation of SDK 4.0.


And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple  
license dot dot revision away from being excluded once again. I  
don't understand why this concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If  
Apple doesn't want you to develop on their platforms, then do like  
Adobe did and give up.


Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or  
later someone is bound to create another must have software product  
with a dev environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to  
be run on iPhones and ipads.


My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I  
couldn't believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just  
to have it rejected based on arbitrary conditions. At least with  
game consoles, they can pre-accept your idea and the final check is  
only a QA one.


Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple  
can change their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment,  
and kill your company plan with an unprecedented dot dot license  
change limiting you to what original programming language is used.  
Who ever heard of such draconian development terms?


Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky  
business indeed.


On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker j...@dvcreators.net  
wrote:


Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app  
there, there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not  
written in Xcode. Text is text.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
 is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you 
make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C 
source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what 
is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially 
the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement 
blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from 
Objective-C source.


  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

wrong

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:24 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
 just want in before and during the compilation process.


They are trying to dictate precompiled source. That's the whole problem.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 wrong


You may have the mistaken idea that Objective-C is compiled code, but it's not, 
it's uncompiled source text, that then gets compiled to the processor on the 
device. Apple saying that you can only use certain languages is directly 
dictating what your code looks like before it's compiled.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Thomas McGrath III

Unity3D:
We haven’t heard anything from Apple about this affecting us, Our 
current best guess is that we’ll be fine.

Full quote:

Unity and the iPhone OS 4.0
by David Helgason on Rants  Raves
Hey guys,I just wanted to thank our forum users for their support and 
thoughtful analyses about Apple’s new ToS (terms of service) for its iPhone OS 
4.0, due to be released this summer. As you are probably all aware by now, the 
new ToS has led to widespread speculation on blogs and in the trade press about 
how the change in wording could affect products marketed on the Apple 
AppStore.As is so often the case with “legalese,” the new ToS are difficult to 
parse with certainty and open to broad interpretation—particularly by Apple 
itself. Some have noted that the strictest possible interpretation could 
prohibit many products from being marketed on the App Store. Others have argued 
that under more benign interpretations of the new terms, Unity and others will 
be just fine.Apple has built a tremendous marketplace for all of us, and it’s 
great for those who successfully take advantage of it. The flipside, of course, 
is that the power there so clearly resides with Apple.This is certainly not the 
first time that developers of all types of apps have faced sometimes confusing 
changes in rules, or their interpretation. It’s a risk we all run in basing 
parts of our businesses on Apple.Here at Unity, we are working hard on getting 
good information, and working to understand whether – or how – the new changes 
could affect the developer community and others. We have reached out to both 
official and unofficial contacts at Apple, we are talking to other companies in 
a similar situation to us, and we’ve been diligent in reading the ToS to get to 
the best legal (and business-wise) analysis of it.We haven’t heard anything 
from Apple about this affecting us, and we believe that with hundreds of titles 
(or probably over a thousand by now), including a significant proportion of the 
best selling ones, we’re adding so much value to the iPhone ecosystem that 
Apple can’t possibly want to shut that down.Our current best guess is that 
we’ll be fine. But it would obviously be irresponsible to guarantee that. What 
I can guarantee is that we’ll continue to do everything in our power to make 
this work, and that we will be here to inform you when we know more – as soon 
as we know more.PS. In the ancient days of the App Store (July 2008), Apple 
very late changed the kernel to disallow JIT (just-in-time) compilation. What 
we did instead was spend several months changing Mono to AOT (ahead of time) 
compile scripts instead (this is why some dynamic constructs in our JavaScript 
doesn’t work on the iPhone). It was a lot of work, but we made it work to 
enable all these amazing Unity games to be sold in the App Store, many of which 
have gone on to be bestsellers and made their creators rich and famous.Thanks 
again for your support. We’re so very proud of you all.
First I would like to thank our forum users for their support and thoughtful 
analyses about Apple’s new ToS (terms of service) for iPhone OS 4.0, due to be 
released this summer.  As you are probably all aware by now, the new ToS has 
led to widespread speculation on blogs and in the press about how the change in 
wording could affect apps sold on Apple’s App Store.

As is so often the case with “legalese,” the new ToS are difficult to parse 
with certainty and open to broad interpretation – not least by Apple itself. 
Some have noted that the strictest possible interpretation could prohibit many 
products from being marketed on the App Store. Others have argued that under 
more benign interpretations of the new terms, Unity and others will be just 
fine.

Apple has built a tremendous marketplace for all of us, and it’s great for 
those who successfully take advantage of it. The flipside, of course, is that 
the power there so clearly resides with Apple.

This is certainly not the first time that developers of all types of apps have 
faced sometimes confusing changes in rules, or their interpretation. It’s a 
risk we all run in basing parts of our businesses on Apple.

Here at Unity, we are working hard on getting good information, and working to 
understand whether – or how – the new changes could affect the developer 
community and others.  We have reached out to both official and unofficial 
contacts at Apple, we are talking to other companies in a similar situation to 
us, and we’ve been diligent in reading the ToS to get to the best legal (and 
business-wise) analysis of it.

We haven’t heard anything from Apple about this affecting us, and we believe 
that with hundreds of titles (or probably over a thousand by now), including a 
significant proportion of the best selling ones, we’re adding so much value to 
the iPhone ecosystem that Apple can’t possibly want to shut that down.

Our current best guess is that we’ll be fine. But it would obviously be

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

This is a protocol war on the surface, a malware customer protection scheme, 
and a way to know exactly what code is running on its devices, and leaves the 
door open for intentional tracer code apple could insert that would allow run 
time reporting and surveillance of app functionality.  What is at steak is 
seeing more than anyone else.  Knowing more about what is going on in its 
devices than any third party code can know.  Being the bottom most turtle.  
Give apple that and they won't care how you wrote the code.  It is that simple. 
 Ask steve.

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:24 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
 just want in before and during the compilation process.


They are trying to dictate precompiled source. That's the whole problem.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

There is no technical reason that rev would have to export any pre-compiled 
code objects or libraries.  Now, if what you aren't saying but meaning, is that 
rev would expose its internal data model and that this could expose the company 
to piracy of core IP, well that is an issue that should be expressed openly.  
The fact that any xtalk environment holds very little claim to deeply 
dependable IP is certainly true.  When you don't own your core IP, the only 
option is to be better than other xtalk IDEs.

The courts have repeatedly told apple that they too must compete through 
consumer choice because their IP claims are unfounded (xerox owns that).

  

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:40 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
 is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you 
make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C 
source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what 
is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially 
the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement 
blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from 
Objective-C source.


  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Exactly . And no, I am not confused.  I have been more than careful to always 
use the word source when asking for C source output from rev.  Source is 
text.  Un-compiled source text.  No confusion here.  Try another straw man 
attack?

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:01 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

On May 9, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 wrong

You may have the mistaken idea that Objective-C is compiled code, but it's not, 
it's uncompiled source text, that then gets compiled to the processor on the 
device. Apple saying that you can only use certain languages is directly 
dictating what your code looks like before it's compiled.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Thomas McGrath III wrote:

 Unity3D:
 We haven’t heard anything from Apple about this affecting us, Our 
 current best guess is that we’ll be fine.


That quote is from April 10th, and I check for later news perhaps several times 
a day!

I did a presentation on Friday, where I showed both Rev and Unity, and I 
emailed Kevin in case there was any news to pass on, and I emailed my buddy who 
happens to be the Evangelist at Unity. He replied, to basically say that there 
is no new news, and Kevin didn't reply at all. I had asked Kevin the question 
in a way that gave him the option to not reply, so I don't feel too hurt!

So, although the best guess from Unity 30 days ago was that they would be ok, 
they still haven't managed to get a definitive answer from Apple. Which is good 
news, compared to a definitive no!



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

Should have read: ... deeply defend-able IP...  Sorry.

-Original Message-
From: Randall Lee Reetz rand...@randallreetz.com
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:16 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

There is no technical reason that rev would have to export any pre-compiled 
code objects or libraries.  Now, if what you aren't saying but meaning, is that 
rev would expose its internal data model and that this could expose the company 
to piracy of core IP, well that is an issue that should be expressed openly.  
The fact that any xtalk environment holds very little claim to deeply 
dependable IP is certainly true.  When you don't own your core IP, the only 
option is to be better than other xtalk IDEs.

The courts have repeatedly told apple that they too must compete through 
consumer choice because their IP claims are unfounded (xerox owns that).

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:40 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
 is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you 
make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C 
source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what 
is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially 
the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement 
blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from 
Objective-C source.

  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Bernard Devlin

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the funny side of this.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net wrote:
 So, although the best guess from Unity 30 days ago was that they would be ok, 
 they still haven't managed to get a definitive answer from Apple. Which is 
 good news, compared to a definitive no!
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 Exactly . And no, I am not confused.  I have been more than careful to always 
 use the word source when asking for C source output from rev.  Source is 
 text.  Un-compiled source text.  No confusion here.  Try another straw man 
 attack?


Now i'm confused. You're pleading for Rev to output C source, presumably to 
comply with Apple's demands, but you also say that Apple isn't dictating what 
is used as source. If Apple are not dictating what source should be like, why 
have a C stage?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

I have expanded that.  You should read my posts before responding.  Io even 
atomized on several occasions why apple wants in at the source level.  Try yet 
another straw man attack.

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate co...@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:26 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

On May 9, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 Exactly . And no, I am not confused.  I have been more than careful to always 
 use the word source when asking for C source output from rev.  Source is 
 text.  Un-compiled source text.  No confusion here.  Try another straw man 
 attack?

Now i'm confused. You're pleading for Rev to output C source, presumably to 
comply with Apple's demands, but you also say that Apple isn't dictating what 
is used as source. If Apple are not dictating what source should be like, why 
have a C stage?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 I have expanded that.  You should read my posts before responding.  Io even 
 atomized on several occasions why apple wants in at the source level.  Try 
 yet another straw man attack.


No, I think I'll leave you to say whatever you want to say, there are too many 
of your messages to go through to see all the things you had previously said. I 
make it to be about 105 messages from you in May alone. That's quite an amount 
to keep up with!



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Jerry J

Randall, do you understand that Apple never sees any source code? The XCode 
compiler does its work on YOUR computer. Apple only sees the finished object 
code. Analyzing the object code can imply what libraries were used to produce 
it, hence the problem. An intermediate step of C code that pretends to be the 
original source would help nobody. Apple would never see it!

-- the other Jerry

On May 9, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

 I have expanded that.  You should read my posts before responding.  Io even 
 atomized on several occasions why apple wants in at the source level.  


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Chipp Walters

Randy,

I get the fact you're not a very technology smart individual. Let me dumb it 
down a bit for you.

A tool which generates C code from xtalk code, creates similar patterns of C 
code, which when compiled, are unique, like human fingerprints. So, it's easy 
to figure out where the initial C code comes from, just as if you were trying 
to identify a person by the fingerprint they left behind.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to say it any simpler. 

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 9, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Randall Lee Reetz rand...@randallreetz.com wrote:

 Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way 
 comparable in this context.
 
 To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to build 
 flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!  But 
 the discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C source 
 from rev stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the apple 
 blessed IDE.  No harm, no foul, no secret sneak.
 
 Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party 
 protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and 
 sketch helper tool.
 
 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Chipp Walters

I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with your brain. Have you not 
bothered listening to anything that has been said here or on the web? The whole 
point of the license is to make sure developers used Apple's and only Apple's 
tools. What part of that is hard to understand?

Actually, the jokes on me. You are clearly a troll. Not interested in any sort 
of logical discourse, only in stirring the pot. I had heard you were thrown off 
the SuperCard list for similar behavior. 

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 9, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz rand...@randallreetz.com wrote:

 No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
 is to control the compiling process.  That way they know what their devices 
 will be running.  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level 
 of control.  What you guys are afraid of isn't being expressed openly and 
 honestly but it has nothing to do with apple's dictates.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

And the sky is falling too!  You have to get your mind around the motivations 
behind apple's demands.  Do that and you won't have to move to idaho and build 
a bomb bunker.

-Original Message-
From: Chipp Walters ch...@altuit.com
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 6:06 PM
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with your brain. Have you not 
bothered listening to anything that has been said here or on the web? The whole 
point of the license is to make sure developers used Apple's and only Apple's 
tools. What part of that is hard to understand?

Actually, the jokes on me. You are clearly a troll. Not interested in any sort 
of logical discourse, only in stirring the pot. I had heard you were thrown off 
the SuperCard list for similar behavior. 

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 9, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz rand...@randallreetz.com wrote:

 No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
 is to control the compiling process.  That way they know what their devices 
 will be running.  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level 
 of control.  What you guys are afraid of isn't being expressed openly and 
 honestly but it has nothing to do with apple's dictates.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread J. Landman Gay

Randall: Stop. We've had enough. Everyone else: don't feed it. Don't 
even answer this post to agree.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread Brian Yennie

Josh,

Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would 
inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple 
could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.

 
 
 On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, J. Landman Gay jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
 wrote:
 
 Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
 
 RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
 Strange choice as for me.
 Main engine should go to C,
 Some parts of REV project also to C
 And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
 
 This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work 
 must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
 
 Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
 there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
 Text is text.
 
 I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures 
 that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk 
 expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there 
 would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned 
 items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using 
 the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone

2010-05-09 Thread tsj

On 10/05/10 12:40 PM, Brian Yennie bri...@qldlearning.com wrote:

 Josh,
 
 Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would
 inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple
 could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.
 

This is all getting a bit circular but you could argue that there is nothing
wrong with that given that the core Rev code was all originally written in a
valid language (C or whatever). You'd still have a problem with your own
(translated from Rev to objective-C) code portions though.

Terry...


 
 On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, J. Landman Gay jac...@hyperactivesw.com
 wrote:
 
 Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
 
 RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
 Strange choice as for me.
 Main engine should go to C,
 Some parts of REV project also to C
 And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
 
 This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work
 must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
 
 Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there,
 there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode.
 Text is text.
 
 I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures
 that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk
 expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there
 would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned
 items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using
 the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
 ___
 use-revolution mailing list
 use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC - iPhone