5 ms·

To the author: I could not agree more. In the long term history of computing, I would hope this stage we are in now is not the height of the "revolution". In

by ised 11y ago

To the author: I could not agree more. In the long term history of computing, I would hope this stage we are in now is not the height of the "revolution". In my humble opinion, to which I am entitled, current Apple hardware is still well-designed like the Apple hardware of the past, but none of it resembles a "bicycyle for the mind". These phones and tablets are "computers" but are programmable only by permission; they are consumption instruments that are meant to support some plan to dominate the communications, media, entertainment industries. Not my idea of a programmable, pocket-sized, networked computer. All due respect to Apple and their wild commercial success, but looking to the future, I get more excited about my RPi or Teensy than I do about my Apple devices. I have little interest in paying for a license to a bloated, complex, proprietary IDE (Xcode) and seeking approval from an "app store" when I can write ARM assembly from a netbook or laptop using a free and open source assembler and run it instantly on the RPi. The revolution is yet to come. I hope. kparc.com/o.htm

MCRed 11y ago
Don't be silly- Apple gives Xcode away for free, it is not bloated nor complex, nor particularly proprietary (who do you think made LLVM?) and you don't need to seek anyone's approval to upload your software to github or to run it on your own device. You can write Arm assembly on your laptop and run it on your iPhone even easier than you can on an rPi. You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free. Apple is the one who shipped the Apple 1 with BASIC... and they haven't stopped.
- hobs 11y ago
  Apple didnt even have a mobile store at launch, it took third parties to get them out of their web only approach, you couldnt even write apps for the iphone until later patches.
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  PalmOS devices were touch screen mobile phone devices that were open to development long before Apple entered the market. There were J2ME devices as well.
- greggman 11y ago
  XCode is not free. It costs 1 Mac. Given the price difference between the cheapest mac and the cheapest alternatives the cost of XCode something > $0 Posted from a mac
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    If we follow your argument to the logical extreme there is no such thing as free software because the computer to run such software almost always costs money? (Unless you receive a computer as a gift or it is freely leased; but then that applies to Macs as much as any computer.)
    - scintill76 11y ago
      The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware. You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.
      - interpol_p 11y ago
        I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper. I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.
        MawNicker 11y ago
        That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.
        11y ago
- Nullabillity 11y ago
  > You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free. Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from? You could install unsigned applications without anyone's permission on old systems like S60 ages before the iPhone.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  > Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission I was writing apps for my Nokia smartphone before the iPhone was even a project.
interpol_p 11y ago
You can code on iOS devices. You can code in many different programming languages on IDEs available directly on the device. The code can be executed, and so programming is not inhibited. What you are referring to is deployment. You want to be able to deploy or distribute your programs freely through the official channels. And because that is locked down, you consider it "programmable by permission." I would argue that this is not the case. All I care about is the logic and elegance of programming. I don't care how my program runs — whether I write ARM code that is simulated through some App Store app. Whether I write Lua code that is run through an iOS game engine, or whether I deploy it directly to the hardware. That is immaterial because I still get to enjoy the art of programming. Apple's phones and tablets are programmable computers and they can be programmed through officially and unofficially distributed apps. Both free and paid, open and closed source. Just because the official distribution model doesn't suit your personal preference does not make these devices any less programmable computers. Also note that Xcode is free and you can freely deploy apps from Xcode to your devices. So I am not sure I understand your criticism here. Nor do you need to even use the closed-source IDE (Xcode) when the compiler and language are open source.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The tablet point is a red herring. 8-bit micros were hardly portable. So discussions about whether or not you can code on iOS or OS X are tangential. The real issue is how easily you can code. 8-bit micros hit the sweet spot. No system available today comes close. You powered up the machine, and the first thing you saw was a BASIC line editor. There was nothing else to distract you. It was instant-on with no setup. You had to write code to use the machine at all. You even had to write code - albeit one line - to load a game from a tape. For the gifted, BASIC led naturally to machine code and to graphics made by writing bytes into memory. No modern environment has anything like the same simplicity, directness, or sense of natural progression. Xcode, gcc, anything with a build system (never mind a package manager) are insanely complicated in comparison. They're so complicated professionals have to write books explaining them to other professionals. Even Python - possibly the best candidate for a successor to BASIC - has a quirky IDE and two and a half different popular versions, and a lot of other complications that a BASIC cursor doesn't. JavaScript? You really have to learn CSS and HTML and jQuery and $(infinitely long list of frameworks goes here) and - oh look, is that the time? There is a huge difference between encouraging programming by making access to it friction-free and trivially easy, with a learning space that's comprehensibly small but not dumbed-down and toy-like, and making programming possible for users who don't mind hurdling a lot of obstacles. That first category is completely empty today. It shouldn't be, but it is.

by ised 11y ago

MCRed 11y ago

Don't be silly- Apple gives Xcode away for free, it is not bloated nor complex, nor particularly proprietary (who do you think made LLVM?) and you don't need to seek anyone's approval to upload your software to github or to run it on your own device. You can write Arm assembly on your laptop and run it on your iPhone even easier than you can on an rPi. You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free. Apple is the one who shipped the Apple 1 with BASIC... and they haven't stopped.

hobs 11y ago
Apple didnt even have a mobile store at launch, it took third parties to get them out of their web only approach, you couldnt even write apps for the iphone until later patches.
cmrdporcupine 11y ago
PalmOS devices were touch screen mobile phone devices that were open to development long before Apple entered the market. There were J2ME devices as well.
greggman 11y ago
XCode is not free. It costs 1 Mac. Given the price difference between the cheapest mac and the cheapest alternatives the cost of XCode something > $0 Posted from a mac
- interpol_p 11y ago
  If we follow your argument to the logical extreme there is no such thing as free software because the computer to run such software almost always costs money? (Unless you receive a computer as a gift or it is freely leased; but then that applies to Macs as much as any computer.)
  - scintill76 11y ago
    The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware. You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.
    - interpol_p 11y ago
      I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper. I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.
      - MawNicker 11y ago
        That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.
        11y ago
Nullabillity 11y ago
> You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free. Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from? You could install unsigned applications without anyone's permission on old systems like S60 ages before the iPhone.
SixSigma 11y ago
> Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission I was writing apps for my Nokia smartphone before the iPhone was even a project.

interpol_p 11y ago

You can code on iOS devices. You can code in many different programming languages on IDEs available directly on the device. The code can be executed, and so programming is not inhibited. What you are referring to is deployment. You want to be able to deploy or distribute your programs freely through the official channels. And because that is locked down, you consider it "programmable by permission." I would argue that this is not the case. All I care about is the logic and elegance of programming. I don't care how my program runs — whether I write ARM code that is simulated through some App Store app. Whether I write Lua code that is run through an iOS game engine, or whether I deploy it directly to the hardware. That is immaterial because I still get to enjoy the art of programming. Apple's phones and tablets are programmable computers and they can be programmed through officially and unofficially distributed apps. Both free and paid, open and closed source. Just because the official distribution model doesn't suit your personal preference does not make these devices any less programmable computers. Also note that Xcode is free and you can freely deploy apps from Xcode to your devices. So I am not sure I understand your criticism here. Nor do you need to even use the closed-source IDE (Xcode) when the compiler and language are open source.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The tablet point is a red herring. 8-bit micros were hardly portable. So discussions about whether or not you can code on iOS or OS X are tangential. The real issue is how easily you can code. 8-bit micros hit the sweet spot. No system available today comes close. You powered up the machine, and the first thing you saw was a BASIC line editor. There was nothing else to distract you. It was instant-on with no setup. You had to write code to use the machine at all. You even had to write code - albeit one line - to load a game from a tape. For the gifted, BASIC led naturally to machine code and to graphics made by writing bytes into memory. No modern environment has anything like the same simplicity, directness, or sense of natural progression. Xcode, gcc, anything with a build system (never mind a package manager) are insanely complicated in comparison. They're so complicated professionals have to write books explaining them to other professionals. Even Python - possibly the best candidate for a successor to BASIC - has a quirky IDE and two and a half different popular versions, and a lot of other complications that a BASIC cursor doesn't. JavaScript? You really have to learn CSS and HTML and jQuery and $(infinitely long list of frameworks goes here) and - oh look, is that the time? There is a huge difference between encouraging programming by making access to it friction-free and trivially easy, with a learning space that's comprehensibly small but not dumbed-down and toy-like, and making programming possible for users who don't mind hurdling a lot of obstacles. That first category is completely empty today. It shouldn't be, but it is.