Common Lisp for Mac OS X
in [Lisp]
|
From: Tim Bradshaw on 28 May 2010 15:22 On 2010-05-28 18:06:32 +0100, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > But this doesn't mean anything! I think it means something fairly obvious: Apple can deny you access to the deployment mechanism if they feel like it. If you then dispute this they have some wording and since they have more money than you, you can't afford to dispute this. Am I the only one laughing at all the fanbois who bought Apple stuff while claiming it was so much more ideologically sound than Microsoft, and not at all because it was shiny and pretty, no, of course not? --tim (I bought it because it was shiny, pretty, and a Unix system not held together with gaffa tape and spit)
From: Thomas A. Russ on 28 May 2010 18:24 pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: > Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > > > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or > > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine." IANAL and I certainly don't work for Apple, but I believe the intent is to scope this as written in [Objective-C], [C], [C++], or [JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine]. as opposed to say, some other standard JavaScript specfiication. I think one of the main goals is to exclude Flash applications. > "iPhone OS" What OS? No multi-tasking, no OS! Well, this only applies to applications that will be run on the iPhone or other devices using the iPhone OS, so it hardly seems like a limitation that comes primarily from the license. -- Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 28 May 2010 21:48 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: > On 2010-05-28 18:06:32 +0100, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > >> But this doesn't mean anything! > > I think it means something fairly obvious: Apple can deny you access > to the deployment mechanism if they feel like it. If you then dispute > this they have some wording and since they have more money than you, > you can't afford to dispute this. > > Am I the only one laughing at all the fanbois who bought Apple stuff > while claiming it was so much more ideologically sound than Microsoft, > and not at all because it was shiny and pretty, no, of course not? > > --tim (I bought it because it was shiny, pretty, and a Unix system not > held together with gaffa tape and spit) Honestly, the unix system under the MacOSX facade feels like it's held together with tape and spit, when you compare it to Linux. Three examples: - maintaince of Darwin is of low priority for Apple (ie there are bugs); - the performance of MacOSX swap and file system is abysmal, compared to Linux (at least as it feels to the users); - every time you get an update of MacOSX, you have to reinstall X11, because it botches some library or something. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 28 May 2010 21:50 tar(a)sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes: > pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: > >> Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: >> >> > "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or >> > JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine." > > IANAL and I certainly don't work for Apple, but I believe the intent is > to scope this as > > written in [Objective-C], [C], [C++], or > [JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine]. > > as opposed to say, some other standard JavaScript specfiication. I > think one of the main goals is to exclude Flash applications. That's the problem with lawyers, they can't say what they mean. It would have been much simplier and clearer to have written: "It is forbidden to run Flash implementations from Adobe on iPhone OS." or: "It is forbidden to run any Flash implementation on iPhone OS." -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Bob Felts on 28 May 2010 22:04
Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: [...] > > - every time you get an update of MacOSX, you have to reinstall X11, > because it botches some library or something. I've never had this problem and I'm running 10.6.3 (having started with 10.6). |