"The Apple SDK and tools are free, and are pretty much state-of-the-art (tool religion battles aside). "
Objective C + XCode + Interface Builder are NOT state of the art IMO. Objective C is archaic compared to almost all the other widely used languages I've looked at: Java, C#, Ruby, Python, Scala. On the iPhone you don't have garbage collection. You have to manually alloc/ dealloc your memory. Many of the libraries are pure C (like Address Book). String manipulation is a nightmare. You get old-school seg faults instead of nice stack dumps like in Java. All the problems of C are present.... Interface Builder is the worst UI builder I've ever used. VB and Delphi from 13 years ago are lightyears ahead of it... it's VERY basic. You can't even do basic stuff like click on a button to attach to a method. The layout management is very primitive. The integration from code to IB is hugely non-intuitive and manual. Of course Delphi from 13 years ago is still ahead of any Java UI Builder I've ever used too, which is sad state of affairs. XCode is very primitive compared to any other widely used IDE out there. It's a pretty pathetic tool. Search google on renaming a project in XCode for a nice example of lameness. The build, deployment, and provisioning process is hugely painful, non- intuitive, error-prone process. I'm talking stuff like error messages that say "Error 0xE800002E" and that's it. Or profiles that just don't work with no message at all. Build processes that just don't work - delete and start over and hope by magic it fixes itself. The issue is developers put up with a LOT of crap. They use lousy tools, I don't really understand why - but they do. How the hell has Ant survived as a scripting language since 2000? I mean who in their right mind thought XML was a good scripting language? But still, 10 years later we use it. And because developers put up with so much crap, Apple hasn't had to pay the price of a lousy development experience.... they are thriving in spite of it. 150K apps out there. My guess is the mobile world was so pathetic before the iPhone that perhaps it was a big step up - note that I haven't coded for any other mobile platform. I'm comparing to developing on a full OS. Another issue, is the output you get with the apps is awesome - I certainly admit that. But getting there is painful, backwards process. And for now, the iPhone marketplace is where the money is. But I have to say, on the development side Apple's reputation for a great user experience doesn't apply. Anyone who says differently must either be coming from a really lame experience (C/mainframe) or hasn't actually tried it out. On the NDA issue - the iPad NDA will go away. I think it's retarded, but it will go away just like the iPhone NDA went away. Guessing lawyers are responsible for it, although I don't understand the justification. Also, if you don't want to sign it for real - just use a fake email address and sign up with a fake name. Problem solved :) On Feb 15, 8:51 pm, "Joe Nuxoll (Java Posse)" <[email protected]> wrote: > <diatribe warning> // this was going to be a single quick point... > doh! > > I'll just make a few quick points: > > (1) Thread title: "Why the iPad is bad for tinkering". The iPad is > bad for tinkering because it is quite specifically NOT *for* > tinkering. It's an actual computing appliance - bringing the power of > computers and the web to the masses in a clean and effective way. Get > the engineers the F out of the way of people getting things *done* > using modern technology and the web. This device is all about the > users, not about the programmers. If you're concerned about hacking > your iPad - you're not part of the target market. Please drive > through. > > (2) Several points brought up in this thread are actually false, which > is a bit annoying. The Apple SDK and tools are free, and are pretty > much state-of-the-art (tool religion battles aside). You have to pay > to play in the App Store, which is quite by design - because it > eliminates open-source-only whiners that don't understand business or > real customer demand. Apple has a quality control process in place > (which has improved in speed and transparency) that protects consumers > from crappy apps that compromise the user experience. This is a BIG > deal, and is only bitched about by developers, not by consumers. > There are a few anti-competitive maneuvers that ruffle consumer > feathers - but they make sense from Apple's perspective as a > business. Those consumers can go ahead and hack their iPhones and do > whatever they want. If you want access to 125,000,000 paying > customers with one-click access to purchase your app, you have to pay > ($99/year, aka NOTHING), and you have to play by Apple's rules. > They're not stupid, and those that bitch are - because they haven't > done the value calculation of what Apple has *brought* to developers: > A real, sizable, meaningful, accessible, paying audience. > > (3) None of us have used an iPad yet. When you get a chance to use > one, the paradigm shift will make sense. It's not a small laptop with > no keyboard. It's not a big iPod touch. It's new, and it will be > very useful for getting actual stuff done by people that focus on real > things - and not just tinkering with electronics. Watch the apps > space - medical, industrial, entertainment, media, real estate... > This user experience is going to change things big time. How do I > know this? Well, I don't. I do know, however, several of the folks > that spent the last year slaving away at a totally new way of > interacting with a computing device, and they are the best in the > business. Those that have used it have made the point to say that > using it is jaw dropping. I am prepared to be impressed. > > (4) Open source is not a model unto itself - it is a business decision > made by a company or person (contributor) that aligns with the overall > objectives of that company or person. Not all software should be open > source. Building software is hard work - as you know - and people > deserve to be paid for their hard work, just like musicians deserve to > be paid for their music; Music stealers are a lot like software > pirates. This goes for all software at every level in the stack. > They open source some of their work (like webkit), but If more of > Apple's stuff made sense to open-source, then I'd be all for it. > However it doesn't make sense to their business. Doing that would be > stupid, which they are not. > > (5) It annoys the heck out of me that so many engineering folks have > not spent any of their vast mental cycles on understanding business > models. It's like the simplest patterns book you could imagine. > Simple algorithms. Simple inputs, simple outputs. The food on your > table is not donated to you by open-source food producers. It's > business. You pay for it because you value it. You pay what you pay > because (a) you and others have decided you are willing to take on the > cost burden for the benefit, and (b) because it costs something *less* > than that to make. Companies that submit software to open source are > *paying* for its development via some other business mechanism, or > THEY WILL DIE. Oh hai Sun! > > - Joe > > On Feb 14, 8:33 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There's a fairly long spiel on podcast 297 about why the iPad isn't > > "evil". I got the impression none of the posse understand what's at > > stake here. I'll be brief - if you think this stuff is interesting and/ > > or important, search the blogsphere, you'll have _plenty_ to read. > > (spoiler: You can't sign the NDA you need to agree to do become an SDK > > developer until 18. Apple is morally in the wrong for not considering > > this). > > > Those who have some reservations about the iPad usually foresee a > > great future for the device. I know the standard sales pitch is for it > > to be a 'third device', but I think that's just shortsighted. What > > would your average family need to do that the iPad cannot do (let's > > make a few provisos, such as a way to sync phones and cameras to an > > ipad)? Play really complex games? Sure, but, you'll probably buy a > > games console and not a PC to fill that niche. Programming? This is > > about people who are just tinkering about before they actually realize > > they'd even want to try programming. What else is there? Serious work, > > spending many hours behind the screen? Working stiffs (and > > programmers :P) will do that, but why would a family need to consider > > that? Also, there's the keyboard dock. Even Mac OS X is so complicated > > my parents just don't understand it. They've got 8 screens worth of > > apps on their iPhones though, and I never showed them anything for it, > > whereas I try to explain their macbook to them every time I'm over. > > > But therein lies a problem. Game consoles are already closed NDA- > > protected fiefdoms, and the iPad is no different. > > > Joe specifically said: Just get the SDK - but that costs money, isn't > > all that great for tinkering (you don't put $99 up front for a whim, > > and the tools aren't made to just screw about for a bit. It's not like > > apple also ships a logo-like environment so kids can learn to program > > too, and there's no way to make something like this either, as you'd > > either break the NDA or you'll run afoul of the app store policies), > > and you HAVE TO BE 18 YEARS OLD! I was less than half that age when I > > wrote my first (ridiculously simple and juvenile) program. > > Nevertheless, it was a program. > > > Apple is a ground-breaking company that is in the business of > > redefining how the world interacts with automated systems. If you want > > to be in that kind of visionary position, you have to think of this > > stuff, and I'm very disappointed that they either haven't considered > > this, or did, and decided not to care about it. They don't have to > > open up the platform much to solve this issue. By relaxing the rules > > on apps that themselves also run apps just a little, you could make > > awesome programming environments almost anybody can tinker around > > with, it would turn the iPad from a force of evil into a force of > > good, as far as increasing the pool of technical creative people is > > concerned. > > > *THAT* is why apple is morally on shaky ground. Which, in the modern > > age, needs to be written as "apple is EEEEVIL!" because headlines > > always ridiculously overstate everything in a silly grab for > > attention. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
