Re: WebObjects development (Mark Wardle)
Hi Mark, When reading through your email I realised that this is quite nicely summarising my thoughts on this topic. I hear other people on the list talking about the past, but this is about the future. Since Apple now has a large installed base of iOS devices, it would be worth a try again to go beyond consumer products. Your medical application of iOS linked with server technology would fit perfect in the common heard Apple values: the crossroads of technology and liberal arts. Let's see what the future brings. I've copied Craig Federighi and hope your idea will interest him as well. Best regards, Bart Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:58:39 + From: Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org To: WebObjects Development webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com Cc: tc...@apple.com Subject: WebObjects development Message-ID: be1dc131-51be-45e1-877e-ecf2f6dd6...@wardle.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: WebObjects development
Precisely what I was trying to express, just done much for elegantly. Too many years in management. I guess my code factoring skills are rusty. Thanks for saying it so clearly. -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Miller wrote: I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course,
Re: WebObjects development (Mark Wardle)
+1, whole heartedly. Universal medical records. Does anyone know of a better server side engine or tool set available to handle all the disparate types of data that the inevitable national health records data base will house? I don't. I'm in the Insurance Business. WO rocks for our purposes. -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:31 AM, jazz wrote: Hi Mark, When reading through your email I realised that this is quite nicely summarising my thoughts on this topic. I hear other people on the list talking about the past, but this is about the future. Since Apple now has a large installed base of iOS devices, it would be worth a try again to go beyond consumer products. Your medical application of iOS linked with server technology would fit perfect in the common heard Apple values: the crossroads of technology and liberal arts. Let's see what the future brings. I've copied Craig Federighi and hope your idea will interest him as well. Best regards, Bart Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:58:39 + From: Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org To: WebObjects Development webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com Cc: tc...@apple.com Subject: WebObjects development Message-ID: be1dc131-51be-45e1-877e-ecf2f6dd6...@wardle.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/joelb%40paperfree.net This email sent to jo...@paperfree.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: WebObjects development (Mark Wardle)
go ahead and store anything you want into Mongo DB and it dumps whatever rats nest of data you put in there without a care in the world. is that a good thing? you decide. my world is mobile, and the web counterparts need a rational routing, and presentation navigation standards to help the mostly client side javascript world of web presentation — and so — I kinda love WO and ERRest because there’s ERXKeys, and D2W and that’s how I want to make a persistence layer I can depend on. On Mar 8, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Joel M. Benisch jo...@paperfree.net wrote: +1, whole heartedly. Universal medical records. Does anyone know of a better server side engine or tool set available to handle all the disparate types of data that the inevitable national health records data base will house? I don't. I'm in the Insurance Business. WO rocks for our purposes. -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:31 AM, jazz wrote: Hi Mark, When reading through your email I realised that this is quite nicely summarising my thoughts on this topic. I hear other people on the list talking about the past, but this is about the future. Since Apple now has a large installed base of iOS devices, it would be worth a try again to go beyond consumer products. Your medical application of iOS linked with server technology would fit perfect in the common heard Apple values: the crossroads of technology and liberal arts. Let's see what the future brings. I've copied Craig Federighi and hope your idea will interest him as well. Best regards, Bart Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:58:39 + From: Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org To: WebObjects Development webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com Cc: tc...@apple.com Subject: WebObjects development Message-ID: be1dc131-51be-45e1-877e-ecf2f6dd6...@wardle.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/joelb%40paperfree.net This email sent to jo...@paperfree.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Re: WebObjects development (Mark Wardle)
Been doing iOS work at a Big Health Tech Company. They use a big Hadoop database for storing everything and then use various ETL type systems to move, clean, organize, etc, back into a SQL database. Most of the iOS stuff talks with Rest to RubyOnRails, hence, my desire to maybe start learning Ruby. However, I have also found that Javascript is a surpassingly good language. On Mar 8, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Joel M. Benisch jo...@paperfree.net wrote: +1, whole heartedly. Universal medical records. Does anyone know of a better server side engine or tool set available to handle all the disparate types of data that the inevitable national health records data base will house? I don't. I'm in the Insurance Business. WO rocks for our purposes. -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:31 AM, jazz wrote: Hi Mark, When reading through your email I realised that this is quite nicely summarising my thoughts on this topic. I hear other people on the list talking about the past, but this is about the future. Since Apple now has a large installed base of iOS devices, it would be worth a try again to go beyond consumer products. Your medical application of iOS linked with server technology would fit perfect in the common heard Apple values: the crossroads of technology and liberal arts. Let's see what the future brings. I've copied Craig Federighi and hope your idea will interest him as well. Best regards, Bart Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:58:39 + From: Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org To: WebObjects Development webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com Cc: tc...@apple.com Subject: WebObjects development Message-ID: be1dc131-51be-45e1-877e-ecf2f6dd6...@wardle.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/joelb%40paperfree.net This email sent to jo...@paperfree.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/james%40jimijon.com This email sent to ja...@jimijon.com ___ Do
Re: WebObjects development (Mark Wardle)
Once you realize javascript has more in common with LISP than Java you will like it more. Javascript *can* be programmed in a Java-like manner and the syntax shares many similarities when you treat it that way. That does not mean that you *should.” You’ll gain a deeper understanding when you read a bit about “prototype” languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming The famous JS library “Prototype” is named what it is for a very good reason, it is not because it makes it faster to make an application prototype. Attacking Javascript with a procedural mindset will make you sick, eventually. You’ll feel that Javascript is brittle and difficult. It is for this same reason I cannot stand jQuery-Mobile and frameworks like them. You feel like you are coming to speed quickly but then you realize you have spaghetti code that is hard to maintain. Just like with WO, learning the “magic” (the right way) is better than quickly hacking on something. Sure, if you already know SQL you can start making JSP (java server pages) almost immediately… but don’t you think *now* that you use an ORM (EOF - EntityModeler) that it was worth it to figure out that mental abstraction? A proper understanding of Javascript, with more of a LISP or even a Smalltalk mindset, will make coding, debugging, and development a breeze. Understanding how to think in the Prototype object model and using “blocks” are key. The difference between a “function reference” and “executing a function” are key, even anonymous functions. On the client side, That’s where JS really shines. Again, I don’t like jQuery-Mobile because you are stringing HTML pages together, you aren’t building an app and you aren’t thinking the best way. Here I would use something like Enyo or JO (there are others). I like Enyo because it has a Web-based GUI that feels like the old WOBuilder / Interface Builder days. The better javascript app environments don’t have you coding ANY html. On the server side, node.js and its kin are “cool” but I don’t see any technical advantage over WO other than You like JS more than Java.” There are many more benefits to WO. I don’t know of any true failings in WO. Our ORM works well. I don’t believe ORM is always the best solution but if I had to use one, I’d want to use EOF. I’ll present on the limits of ORM and how to work around them elegantly with WO at this year’s WOWODC. How many versions of Adobe Photoshop do we need? Aren’t they done yet? In fact, some of the older versions are better if you do nefarious deeds with it. By the same token, WO is feature complete. We don’t need a new version out from Apple. Anjo and I are happy to use WO 5.3 because with Wonder WO 5.4 didn’t get us anything. Really, nothing at all. Apple does not need us… we also do not need Apple to be viable. Apple has given us more than enough already. Be thankful. Though we are feature complete, I do see some people trying to make new things for WO and trying to give back but are met with friction. People like Ken Ishimoto. To me that’s our biggest issue. It’s not so easy to get your contributions into WOnder. We have a gentleman’s club. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 8, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Jesse Tayler jtay...@oeinc.com wrote: go ahead and store anything you want into Mongo DB and it dumps whatever rats nest of data you put in there without a care in the world. is that a good thing? you decide. my world is mobile, and the web counterparts need a rational routing, and presentation navigation standards to help the mostly client side javascript world of web presentation — and so — I kinda love WO and ERRest because there’s ERXKeys, and D2W and that’s how I want to make a persistence layer I can depend on. On Mar 8, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Joel M. Benisch jo...@paperfree.net wrote: +1, whole heartedly. Universal medical records. Does anyone know of a better server side engine or tool set available to handle all the disparate types of data that the inevitable national health records data base will house? I don't. I'm in the Insurance Business. WO rocks for our purposes. -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:31 AM, jazz wrote: Hi Mark, When reading through your email I realised that this is quite nicely summarising my thoughts on this topic. I hear other people on the list talking about the past, but this is about the future. Since Apple now has a large
Re: WebObjects development (Mark Wardle)
Thanks Aaron, I'm going to keep this email front and center during the Fluent conference. Been awhile since my LISP, but I do remember it being very slick. I'm just not sure how good it would be for large projects. My mind is definitely geared toward OO, and I don't recall there being strong OO features built into the language. I'm also a big believer in strong typing. Compile errors are much more palatable to me than runtime errors. As with even javascript, I'm sure there are ways to write Lisp in an OO and maybe even a strongly typed way, but I don't want to have to think about how to structure my code using tricks to introduce concepts that I'm used to be at the front and center of a good OO language. My idea about javascript has always been that as ugly as it is, it sticks around because it's the only game in town on the browser. It just seems anathema to me that this language is creeping to the server side, even with all the libraries being built up that in essence try to fix all that is wrong with the language itself. To me the right approach is the Wonder Ajax way, let the server generate as much of the javascript for you as possible so you don't have to get your hands dirty (just like EOF does with SQL). But, I'll keep an open mind as I learn more about server side javascript and associated libraries. On Mar 8, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com wrote: Once you realize javascript has more in common with LISP than Java you will like it more. Javascript *can* be programmed in a Java-like manner and the syntax shares many similarities when you treat it that way. That does not mean that you *should.” You’ll gain a deeper understanding when you read a bit about “prototype” languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming The famous JS library “Prototype” is named what it is for a very good reason, it is not because it makes it faster to make an application prototype. Attacking Javascript with a procedural mindset will make you sick, eventually. You’ll feel that Javascript is brittle and difficult. It is for this same reason I cannot stand jQuery-Mobile and frameworks like them. You feel like you are coming to speed quickly but then you realize you have spaghetti code that is hard to maintain. Just like with WO, learning the “magic” (the right way) is better than quickly hacking on something. Sure, if you already know SQL you can start making JSP (java server pages) almost immediately… but don’t you think *now* that you use an ORM (EOF - EntityModeler) that it was worth it to figure out that mental abstraction? A proper understanding of Javascript, with more of a LISP or even a Smalltalk mindset, will make coding, debugging, and development a breeze. Understanding how to think in the Prototype object model and using “blocks” are key. The difference between a “function reference” and “executing a function” are key, even anonymous functions. On the client side, That’s where JS really shines. Again, I don’t like jQuery-Mobile because you are stringing HTML pages together, you aren’t building an app and you aren’t thinking the best way. Here I would use something like Enyo or JO (there are others). I like Enyo because it has a Web-based GUI that feels like the old WOBuilder / Interface Builder days. The better javascript app environments don’t have you coding ANY html. On the server side, node.js and its kin are “cool” but I don’t see any technical advantage over WO other than You like JS more than Java.” There are many more benefits to WO. I don’t know of any true failings in WO. Our ORM works well. I don’t believe ORM is always the best solution but if I had to use one, I’d want to use EOF. I’ll present on the limits of ORM and how to work around them elegantly with WO at this year’s WOWODC. How many versions of Adobe Photoshop do we need? Aren’t they done yet? In fact, some of the older versions are better if you do nefarious deeds with it. By the same token, WO is feature complete. We don’t need a new version out from Apple. Anjo and I are happy to use WO 5.3 because with Wonder WO 5.4 didn’t get us anything. Really, nothing at all. Apple does not need us… we also do not need Apple to be viable. Apple has given us more than enough already. Be thankful. Though we are feature complete, I do see some people trying to make new things for WO and trying to give back but are met with friction. People like Ken Ishimoto. To me that’s our biggest issue. It’s not so easy to get your contributions into WOnder. We have a gentleman’s club. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 8, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Jesse Tayler jtay...@oeinc.com wrote: go ahead and store anything you want into Mongo DB and it dumps whatever rats nest of data you put in there without a care in the world.
Re: WebObjects development
Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/probert%40macti.ca This email sent to prob...@macti.ca ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: WebObjects development
Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/probert%40macti.ca This email sent to prob...@macti.ca ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Re: WebObjects development
Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or m...@wardle.org Twitter: @mwardle Telephone: 02920745274 (secretary) or facsimile: 02920744166 ___ Do not post
Re: WebObjects development
Interesting issue/discussion. On the one hand, WO does not have the potential critical sales mass to warrant selling it as a supported product. On the other hand, WO has so much strategic value that Apple can't afford to release it into the wild ? WTF. I know some economists who could have a blast discussing that one over a case of good beer. But setting all the theory aside .. If WO really is such a superior set of tools and libraries (Gentlemen's Club Membership aside), it would seem that Apple ought to be able to find a way to use it in the enterprise arena as a tool to support the whole Apple Is More Elegant, Apple Has Taste, Apple Provides A Lower Total Cost Of Ownership story ??? We all pat each other on the back regularly about the great applications we've built years ago that are still humming along and are very inexpensive for our clients to maintain. In other words, we don't do throw away code !!! We rarely have to do it over after we've done it once. I just seem to smell a little profit center here Not necessarily in the direct sale price of the WO units that can be sold. But in the follow on sales of Apple devices that play well with WO. Microsoft has used their tools to cause unknowing developers to build HTML that only Windows (Internet Explorer) can interpret. I'm not suggesting that Apple do the same on the sly the way MS does/did. But clearly WO could be made to support features of iOS that don't have comparable counterparts in the competing mobile OSes. It has baffled me for years that WO has not been treated as the high powered trojan horse that it could be. But what do I know? -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Aaron Rosenzweig wrote: Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to
Re: WebObjects development
Le 2014-03-07 à 19:57, Joel M. Benisch jo...@paperfree.net a écrit : Interesting issue/discussion. On the one hand, WO does not have the potential critical sales mass to warrant selling it as a supported product. On the other hand, WO has so much strategic value that Apple can't afford to release it into the wild ? WTF. I know some economists who could have a blast discussing that one over a case of good beer. But setting all the theory aside .. If WO really is such a superior set of tools and libraries (Gentlemen's Club Membership aside), it would seem that Apple ought to be able to find a way to use it in the enterprise arena as a tool to support the whole Apple Is More Elegant, Apple Has Taste, Apple Provides A Lower Total Cost Of Ownership story ??? We all pat each other on the back regularly about the great applications we've built years ago that are still humming along and are very inexpensive for our clients to maintain. In other words, we don't do throw away code !!! We rarely have to do it over after we've done it once. I just seem to smell a little profit center here Not necessarily in the direct sale price of the WO units that can be sold. But in the follow on sales of Apple devices that play well with WO. That was the business plan when they released 5.3: change the licence so that it’s only possible to develop on OS X but make it free. We all saw what happened after… Apple needed us up until 2007. iOS came after, and they don’t need us (except to hire WO developers). Microsoft has used their tools to cause unknowing developers to build HTML that only Windows (Internet Explorer) can interpret. I'm not suggesting that Apple do the same on the sly the way MS does/did. But clearly WO could be made to support features of iOS that don't have comparable counterparts in the competing mobile OSes. It has baffled me for years that WO has not been treated as the high powered trojan horse that it could be. But what do I know? -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Aaron Rosenzweig wrote: Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency
Re: WebObjects development
On 2014-03-07, 4:57 PM, Joel M. Benisch wrote: Interesting issue/discussion. On the one hand, WO does not have the potential critical sales mass to warrant selling it as a supported product. On the other hand, WO has so much strategic value that Apple can't afford to release it into the wild ? WTF. I know some economists who could have a blast discussing that one over a case of good beer. Seems totally reasonable to me. Apple has nothing to gain by making it into a supported product. It does not align with their business of selling consumer devices. Apple has nothing to gain by releasing it. Nothing. Why would a business spend its resources on some activity of no value to it? But setting all the theory aside .. If WO really is such a superior set of tools and libraries (Gentlemen's Club Membership aside), it would seem that Apple ought to be able to find a way to use it in the enterprise arena as a tool to support the whole Apple Is More Elegant, Apple Has Taste, Apple Provides A Lower Total Cost Of Ownership story ??? Apple left the Enterprise area some time back. They identified more profitable markets to play in. From what I can see, they have done rather well! Chuck We all pat each other on the back regularly about the great applications we've built years ago that are still humming along and are very inexpensive for our clients to maintain. In other words, we don't do throw away code !!! We rarely have to do it over after we've done it once. I just seem to smell a little profit center here Not necessarily in the direct sale price of the WO units that can be sold. But in the follow on sales of Apple devices that play well with WO. Microsoft has used their tools to cause unknowing developers to build HTML that only Windows (Internet Explorer) can interpret. I'm not suggesting that Apple do the same on the sly the way MS does/did. But clearly WO could be made to support features of iOS that don't have comparable counterparts in the competing mobile OSes. It has baffled me for years that WO has not been treated as the high powered trojan horse that it could be. But what do I know? -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.netmailto:j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Aaron Rosenzweig wrote: Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Aaron Rosenzweig / Chat 'n Bikehttp://www.chatnbike.com/ e: aa...@chatnbike.commailto:aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 [Chat 'n Bike] [Chat 'n Bike] On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.camailto:prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped
Re: WebObjects development
Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I’ve copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I’m hoping he’ll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this is and how it can be a great product for both large and small enterprises, can form part of a great technology stack and support iOS, and as such, re-incarnate WebObjects - the technology we love! Mr Cook - could Apple un-deprecate this technology please? It is really rather good! Best wishes, Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Consultant Neurologist, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK Email: mark.war...@wales.nhs.uk or
Re: WebObjects development
I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.netwrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite gentleman's club There are those in the circle and those outside. For the record, I'm not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that's ok. It's just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don't give a damn. Mark, I'm glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I'll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, well would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple's other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer's lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. You want to sue me for this? then I'll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don't we just not sue each other ok? Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple's stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple... but even then... it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it's Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton's Dylan language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn't their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we're just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We've achieved this on a shoestring and it's due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my WebObjects applications are still running and we are getting more and more users here in this part of the UK! It is just a shame Apple seems to have given up on it. I've copied in Tim Cook to this. At the back of my mind, I'm hoping he'll take an interest, realise overnight what a great technology this
Re: WebObjects development
Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We’ve achieved this on a shoestring and it’s due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my outpatient clinic. I think it would make a tremendous difference to how we provide healthcare. WebObjects is such a good fit for iOS devices I just cannot believe that Apple does not want to support such a great and productive technology. Whatever the case, my
Re: WebObjects development
It's all about iPhone and iPad sales and one of the things that makes Apple's devices the best is the quantity and quality of the applications in the platform. And the application server is an essential component to many iOS and Mac applications with the prime example being iTunes. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.netwrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite gentleman's club There are those in the circle and those outside. For the record, I'm not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that's ok. It's just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don't give a damn. Mark, I'm glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I'll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, well would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple's other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer's lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. You want to sue me for this? then I'll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don't we just not sue each other ok? Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple's stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple... but even then... it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it's Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton's Dylan language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn't their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we're just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to our WebObjects applications handling all of the complex business logic that we need in healthcare. We've achieved this on a shoestring and it's due to the great design - seen in WebObjects and of course, by logical extension in the related frameworks inherited from NeXT in modern Apple operating systems. Personally, I want Apple stuff in the enterprise - in my enterprise - in my
Re: WebObjects development
Like Chuck, Apple got out of that business (real server software, XServe, WO). If they are going to offer something on the server-side, it will probably be a Apple-hosted solution that they will control. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:31, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : It's all about iPhone and iPad sales and one of the things that makes Apple's devices the best is the quantity and quality of the applications in the platform. And the application server is an essential component to many iOS and Mac applications with the prime example being iTunes. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical integration? WebObjects is and could be the server side answer for iOS in the enterprise. For me, we’re just about to deploy our first iOS apps running on iPads in our outpatient clinics, linking to
Re: WebObjects development
Sounds great to me! Here is your laptop, dev tools and apple hosted OS X VM. Well one can dream. Have a nice weekend! On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Like Chuck, Apple got out of that business (real server software, XServe, WO). If they are going to offer something on the server-side, it will probably be a Apple-hosted solution that they will control. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:31, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : It's all about iPhone and iPad sales and one of the things that makes Apple's devices the best is the quantity and quality of the applications in the platform. And the application server is an essential component to many iOS and Mac applications with the prime example being iTunes. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think many of us have achieved so much with this technology stack, solutions that would be much more difficult with other technologies. I think Apple is missing a trick here. Perhaps I am naive but isn’t their focus on vertical
Re: WebObjects development
Unlike iOS and OS X, Apple does not own the server platform. Communication is via standard protocols. And Apple is no longer in the server market. Bringing back WO as a product is NOT going to sell more iPhones. It is NOT going to make more money for Apple. Making a really good SDK and development tool for iOS IS going to sell more iPhones. Apple may not do what you want, but they are smart! They know a winning business model when they see one. Unfortunately for those who appreciate it, WO just never had a winning business model. Deal with it. Chuck On 2014-03-07, 6:30 PM, Jonathan Miller wrote: It's all about iPhone and iPad sales and one of the things that makes Apple's devices the best is the quantity and quality of the applications in the platform. And the application server is an essential component to many iOS and Mac applications with the prime example being iTunes. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.camailto:prob...@macti.ca wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.commailto:jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.netmailto:nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.camailto:prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.commailto:aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.commailto:aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319tel:%28301%29%20956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.camailto:prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle m...@wardle.orgmailto:m...@wardle.org a écrit : Hi all. It is sad to hear the despondency permeating through the email list today. I think
Re: WebObjects development
Does that make Google dumb? https://cloud.google.com/developers/articles/how-to-build-mobile-app-with-app-engine-backend-tutorial Sent from my iPad On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Chuck Hill ch...@global-village.net wrote: Unlike iOS and OS X, Apple does not own the server platform. Communication is via standard protocols. And Apple is no longer in the server market. Bringing back WO as a product is NOT going to sell more iPhones. It is NOT going to make more money for Apple. Making a really good SDK and development tool for iOS IS going to sell more iPhones. Apple may not do what you want, but they are smart! They know a winning business model when they see one. Unfortunately for those who appreciate it, WO just never had a winning business model. Deal with it. Chuck On 2014-03-07, 6:30 PM, Jonathan Miller wrote: It's all about iPhone and iPad sales and one of the things that makes Apple's devices the best is the quantity and quality of the applications in the platform. And the application server is an essential component to many iOS and Mac applications with the prime example being iTunes. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where Apple technology was freed up to the world but in both of those cases they had strong supporters on the inside to make it happen: 1. Apple released it’s Smalltalk and core team to Walt Disney and Disney let it be open source: http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html 2. Apple Newton’s “Dylan” language was released and became a commercial product for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dylan_programming_language Both happened in the 90s. AARON ROSENZWEIG / Chat 'n Bike e: aa...@chatnbike.com t: (301) 956-2319 On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Please please please... Someone went as far as asking for support by talking to an Apple Senior VP, and the answer was: NO! Stop thinking that Apple will help us after 5 years without any help from Apple. They even stopped contributing to Wonder 3 years ago. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 17:59, Mark Wardle
Re: WebObjects development
I can put it more succinctly than Chuck by saying that Chuck seems to me to have this right, front-to-back. Three comments: 1. There was a time when WebObjects fit Apple's business model as did, e.g., the Xserve product. That model changed, a lot, many years ago now. 2. I don't think the current die was cast 5 years ago, I think it was probably cast 10 or more years ago. 3. My reason for yielding to temptation: the best chance for WebObjects to succeed, in my opinion, would have been if it had been spun off from Apple back when customers were willing to put money down for server technology. If one had built a strong company around the technology and then moved the company forward as a solutions provider leveraging the technology, it is plausible that it might have a heartbeat and own a portion of the world today. Have those proposing to resurrect WebObjects at Apple contemplated what percentage of the current employees, including management, even worked for the company when WebObjects last generated revenue/profit for Apple? Off the cuff, I think their revenue has grown 20-40 fold since that time. Tom On Mar 7, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Chuck Hill ch...@global-village.net wrote: Unlike iOS and OS X, Apple does not own the server platform. Communication is via standard protocols. And Apple is no longer in the server market. Bringing back WO as a product is NOT going to sell more iPhones. It is NOT going to make more money for Apple. Making a really good SDK and development tool for iOS IS going to sell more iPhones. Apple may not do what you want, but they are smart! They know a winning business model when they see one. Unfortunately for those who appreciate it, WO just never had a winning business model. Deal with it. Chuck On 2014-03-07, 6:30 PM, Jonathan Miller wrote: It's all about iPhone and iPad sales and one of the things that makes Apple's devices the best is the quantity and quality of the applications in the platform. And the application server is an essential component to many iOS and Mac applications with the prime example being iTunes. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca wrote: Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 2014-03-07 à 21:05, Jonathan Miller jlmil...@kahalawai.com a écrit : I know you guys are right and I loathe to involve myself in this discussion but here goes nothing... Does Apple make a lot of money selling XCode? They make money by selling laptops to developers and by taking 30% of revenues in the app stores. It seems to me that WO is another tool that Apple could support that enables developers to make great applications for their platform. After all, the application server is an important component to many if not most iOS apps. my 2 cents... On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Nilton Lessa nle...@molequedeideias.net wrote: Em 07/03/2014, às 21:46, Pascal Robert prob...@macti.ca escreveu: Le 2014-03-07 à 19:21, Aaron Rosenzweig aa...@chatnbike.com a écrit : Am I right or what? WO is an elite “gentleman’s club” There are those “in the circle” and those outside. For the record, I’m not the one who contacted a senior VP. If Mark wants to send a note of praise to someone, why not? Even if it is Tim Cook. Will anything bad come of that? It may fall on deaf ears but that’s ok. It’s just that every year, in the answers in the surveys, I still people asking for something from Apple. Even if we said many times that Apple management don’t give a damn. Mark, I’m glad you love WO. For those who may wonder, I’ll summarize what I believe Pascal is alluding to: Even if WO sold very well, “well” would be a relative term. Compared to their other product lines, a good line of sales related to WO would mean nothing compared to Apple’s other product lines. How many developers are there in the world? Compare that to consumers. Apple does not need to make other programmer’s lives easier on the server. It would be nice but there is no need (for Apple). If Apple were to open source WO, it may mean they have less of an ace up their sleeve in negotiations with other companies when legal issues crop up. “You want to sue me for this? then I’ll sue you for your use of Key-Value-Coding so why don’t we just not sue each other ok?” Open sourcing WO could weaken Apple’s stance in legal battles for no monetary gain. The ONLY way to open source WO would be to buy it from Apple… but even then… it would have to be a lot of money to make it worth the legal trouble of figuring out if that is a good financial deal for Apple. And since a major group (iTunes) use it, not going to happen. But we could open source it, by rewriting it and by replacing some stuff by alternatives. Yes, I strongly agree with Pascal, it's the only(and good) option for future. I can think of a few cases where
