On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >>> >>> Also, it's likely that I don't understand, but it sounds to me >>> like it's better to stay out of this thing since otherwise you >>> need to commit to be sandboxed -- and if it's the same as on the >>> ios, then a sandboxed racket is not very useful... >> >> First, this isn't the same as the iOS sandbox, but it would be >> troublesome for Racket. For example, I don't think `require' can >> work. >> >> Second, signing doesn't imply sandboxing, I think. Only in the Mac >> App Store is sandboxing required. I think we will definitely want >> to make Racket a signed app. > > Yes to both -- but to clarify, it looks to me that in general the OS X > thing is slowly moving closer to iOS (so I guess that sandboxing will > get closer to it in time), and I'm also guessing that the second level > will slowly move to adopt restrictions from the first one (becoming a > kind of an alternative to distributing your application via the apple > store, but otherwise almost the same).
For what it's worth, I think we're in the same bin with Eclipse and Python and every open-source compiler, so we'll at least have some company. As I've said before, I'll be sad but not surprised when Apple decides to become evil and I have to leave OS X for Linux. John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
