2 ms·

From the article- "programs aren’t originally written in any definite language, or in any definite location. Programs are encoded information that is contiguous

From the article- "programs aren’t originally written in any definite language, or in any definite location. Programs are encoded information that is contiguous and continuous with the information in our heads, and in the world." I certainly can't speak for how anyone else codes, but there is a significant difference between the representation in my head before I sit down to code and the structures and algorithms of the compilable implementation. The act of coming up with a solidified idea and typing with syntax are not discrete passes, so I don't think it's inaccurate to say that I've "originally" implemented the program on a computer.

billybob 17y ago
Yes, but how do you answer his thought experiment? "What if Ben writes a Flash app, shows it to Amy, who codes it up in Objective-C, compiles it and submits it to Apple? Should it be rejected since it was not 'originally written' in Objective-C? If you think Apple’s answer would be 'no' — a good guess — then substitute Adobe’s iPhone Packager for Amy. Now should it be rejected according to the rules? What, at the end of the day, makes Amy different from a machine translation tool?" Apple's rule creates all kinds of ambiguities. What if you mocked it up first in Ruby because that's where you're most comfortable? What if you used psuedocode? What if you just drew a diagram? What if you just thought about it? How do you determine what the app was "originally written" in? More importantly, how does Apple determine it and why should they care?
- twalling 17y ago
  Thought experiment. Good choice of words, I think the post was intended to take it to the extreme just to provoke some interesting thoughts on the new language. Legal agreements will be interpreted differently and its important for them to spell out these ambiguities. For instance, I don't think "originally written" is defined anywhere in the document. If it were a really thorough legal document they'd probably define that somewhere. Right now its completely up for interpretation.

billybob 17y ago

Yes, but how do you answer his thought experiment? "What if Ben writes a Flash app, shows it to Amy, who codes it up in Objective-C, compiles it and submits it to Apple? Should it be rejected since it was not 'originally written' in Objective-C? If you think Apple’s answer would be 'no' — a good guess — then substitute Adobe’s iPhone Packager for Amy. Now should it be rejected according to the rules? What, at the end of the day, makes Amy different from a machine translation tool?" Apple's rule creates all kinds of ambiguities. What if you mocked it up first in Ruby because that's where you're most comfortable? What if you used psuedocode? What if you just drew a diagram? What if you just thought about it? How do you determine what the app was "originally written" in? More importantly, how does Apple determine it and why should they care?

twalling 17y ago
Thought experiment. Good choice of words, I think the post was intended to take it to the extreme just to provoke some interesting thoughts on the new language. Legal agreements will be interpreted differently and its important for them to spell out these ambiguities. For instance, I don't think "originally written" is defined anywhere in the document. If it were a really thorough legal document they'd probably define that somewhere. Right now its completely up for interpretation.