Coffeehouse Thread

35 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

So Apple are pushing iPad in the Enterprise ...

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Bass wrote

    @Ray7:

    MacRuby

    It's one of the fastest Ruby implementations as well. And yeah it's an official Apple project. Apple is very serious about making Ruby a first class language for client development, with IDE support and all.

     

    Blimey.

    Okay, that is very interesting. But this has been sitting at version 0.10 for quite some time.

    I sometimes wonder if Apple is deliberately trying to make developers go the extra mile by forcing them to use ObjectiveC. 

    Or perhaps it's all about locking them into a skill that can't really be transferred anywhere else. If it's the latter then I'm not sure that MacRuby will be seen as favourably inside Apple.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Or perhaps it's all about locking them into a skill that can't really be transferred anywhere else. If it's the latter then I'm not sure that MacRuby will be seen as favourably inside Apple.

    Like C# as it relates to Java?

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Bass

    MacRuby is open source and actively developed on Github. Lock in isn't Apple's modus operandi. If Apple didn't want to people to use Ruby they wouldn't financially back it and add Ruby language support in XCode.

    Also it is not like Objective-C doesn't work other platforms. Linux has two working Objective-C compilers, Clang and gcc. And guess who developed the Objective-C compiler support? Apple. If they are trying to lock Objective-C devs into their platform they are doing a very poor job of it.

    Ruby is a hugely popular language amongst the Mac-using hipster developer community so it is only natural for Apple to back it.

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    , DeathByVisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    Like C# as it relates to Java?

    Microsoft put much more effort into standardizing C# than Sun did for Java. I wouldn't attribute the lack of uptake on linux, or MacOS for that matter, to some Microsoft anti-proliferation campaign. Rather, I would attribute it to an ABM-- anybody but Microsoft-- mentality among FOSS developers. Perception lags reality.

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    cheong

    @Dr Herbie:I do hope Microsoft can reduce the cost of Surface soon. The Surface machine fits the conference room table well, as well as giving them incentive to run "all Microsoft" device, so they can conveniently flip files around.

    The portable device alone is... too fragmented I should say... to fit the frame of Enterprisy environment. While iPad has a lead in gerenal acceptance, Microsoft still has a chance to catch up if MSFT can release a set of systems that do integration better and smoother.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , JoshRoss wrote

    *snip*

    Microsoft put much more effort into standardizing C# than Sun did for Java. I wouldn't attribute the lack of uptake on linux, or MacOS for that matter, to some Microsoft anti-proliferation campaign. Rather, I would attribute it to an ABM-- anybody but Microsoft-- mentality among FOSS developers. Perception lags reality.

    -Josh

    I really don't know squat about Mono other than it's a Linux (and related) partial implementation of SL and the .NET stack but it was my impression that while Microsoft didn't try and kill it, it also didn't fund it. Now I know that's not the same thing as trying to get a language standardized but it certainly doesn't help C#'s adoption outside of the Windows world. If you've got no where to use C# other than Windows then what good is having it officially sanctioned as a standard? Marketing?

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , DeathByVisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    I have no idea what I'm talking about but I'll make up some oh-so-hilarious anti-Microsoft crap.

    For once, I agree.

  • User profile image
    cheong

    @PaoloM:LOL!

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , DeathByVisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    Like C# as it relates to Java?

    I take your point, but let's focus on the word 'transferable'. I know lots of developers that can move between Java and C# without even changing gears. I think it's much harder with ObjectiveC because it's such an odd mix of language paradigms: low-level C, a little bit of SmallTalk messaging and few more bits tacked on over the years to try to keep up with the newer languages.

    I don't like the language which is why I've been reluctant to learn it (turns out that I don't have a choice now). I'm not saying it's rubbish, but what I am saying that it's certainly not a skill that can be transferred between platforms.

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , DeathByVisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    I really don't know squat about Mono other than it's a Linux (and related) partial implementation of SL and the .NET stack but it was my impression that while Microsoft didn't try and kill it, it also didn't fund it.

    Fund it? Why should they fund it?

    Now I know that's not the same thing as trying to get a language standardized but it certainly doesn't help C#'s adoption outside of the Windows world. If you've got no where to use C# other than Windows then what good is having it officially sanctioned as a standard? Marketing?

    Well, I thought the whole point of FOSS was that they would do the heavy lifting themselves. MS's expertise is in on the Windows platform. Surely it makes more sense for Linux people to handle the Linux port. which I think they did with Mono.

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Bass wrote

    MacRuby is open source and actively developed on Github. Lock in isn't Apple's modus operandi. If Apple didn't want to people to use Ruby they wouldn't financially back it and add Ruby language support in XCode.

    Also it is not like Objective-C doesn't work other platforms. Linux has two working Objective-C compilers, Clang and gcc. And guess who developed the Objective-C compiler support? Apple. If they are trying to lock Objective-C devs into their platform they are doing a very poor job of it.

    Ruby is a hugely popular language amongst the Mac-using hipster developer community so it is only natural for Apple to back it.

    Yup. Point taken.I think I was focussing on the lack of movement on the blog and the fact that it seems to have been stuck at version 0.1 for quite some time, which was probably a little unfair.

    I shall keep an eye on it though, and take it for a spin when I have more time.

    Lock in isn't Apple's modus operandi.

    But that we're going to have to agree to disagree on. Lock-in is everyone's modus operandi.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    "Lock-in" simply means that you've put YOURSELF into a position that makes it economically painful to change what you're using. You can lock yourself into a particular vendor's product or a particular distribution's product. In either case, it's your own damn fault. That's not to say that you didn't yield enough benefit during the period before you wanted to switch to outweigh whatever economic pain you have to incur to make the switch now. IOW, lock-in might not be so bad if you look at the big picture instead of just looking at your current situation. Who knows? Had you not put yourself in a position to be locked-in, you might not have even survived long enough to b1tch about being locked-in now.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    @Bass: Is Cocoa available on Linux?

  • User profile image
    Bass

    @ZippyV:

    Partially at least. See GNUStep.

     

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , PaoloM wrote

    *snip*

    For once, I agree.

    Welcome to the seller where we haters live Paolo. I'm glad to see you emulate my greatness.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    I take your point, but let's focus on the word 'transferable'. I know lots of developers that can move between Java and C# without even changing gears. I think it's much harder with ObjectiveC because it's such an odd mix of language paradigms: low-level C, a little bit of SmallTalk messaging and few more bits tacked on over the years to try to keep up with the newer languages.

    I don't like the language which is why I've been reluctant to learn it (turns out that I don't have a choice now). I'm not saying it's rubbish, but what I am saying that it's certainly not a skill that can be transferred between platforms.

    I'd have to agree with you there.

    , Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Fund it? Why should they fund it?

    *snip*

    Well, I thought the whole point of FOSS was that they would do the heavy lifting themselves. MS's expertise is in on the Windows platform. Surely it makes more sense for Linux people to handle the Linux port. which I think they did with Mono.

    Good point about FOSS experts doing the heavy lifting however IMO it would have helped the adoption and overcome some of the ABM if Microsoft would have put some dollars behind it to speed its development and compatibility with the Windows .NET/SL stack. If .NET/SL were more cross-platform I think we would have seen a broader adoption of C#. Just my opinion of course.

    Funny, I just had a demo from Motorola (not Mobility) on RhoMobile (a PhoneGap-like solution) and guess what language they use... Ruby with HTML5/JavaScript for the UI.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ranz

    Apple knows no bounds. It's 1984 again, but this time we're going willingly. 

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.