7 ms·

Scheme is also dead on the iPhone

150 points by jlongster 17y ago

axod 17y ago
Please think before upvoting. 10 out of the top 22 stories are about this one story. We get it. Some developers are throwing a hissy fit.
- tumult 17y ago
  People are mad because it's clear Apple has something good going here with their mobile platforms, but they're blowing it for all of us now, including themselves.
  - khelloworld 17y ago
    I'm not really sure if they are hurting themselves.
    - tumult 17y ago
      The elves will leave Middle Earth, and they will truly be left with nothing but fart apps. They need to fix this clause, fast.
      - axod 17y ago
        Definitely. After all, other closed restrictive platforms such as games consoles only contain rubbish. For every clojure zealot, there are probably 10 objective-c developers who will be happy with less competition.
        tumult 17y ago
        This is a mistaken claim. Naughty Dog, for example, uses a precompilation phase in their games involving Lisp that builds into machine and graphics code. Most games, too, have a dynamic runtime in the form of a customized scripting engine in their game, tailored to the needs of their game. Sometimes this is done with a pre-existing language like Lua, sometimes it's built from scratch, like UnrealScript (Unreal1 - 3 engines). All of these are now banned.
        smallblacksun 17y ago
        Interpreters that run on the iphone have always been banned.
        tumult 17y ago
        Before, it was just interpreters that could load in external code, i.e. user input or the internet. Now, they are all banned.
      - khelloworld 17y ago
        As much as I'd like to agree with you, that is simply not going to happen. Do you seriously think companies/developers like EA, Cultured Code, Omni Group etc are going to leave the app store just because apps written in Scheme or Actionscript or .Net are not welcome on the app store? Again, as much as I'd like to agree with you, none of the prominent app developers are going to be leaving anytime soon. And, as for people who make Farting apps, they probably wont care anyways because use Objective-C or Actionscript, the apps are rather simple anyways. The efficiency of writing code probably wont matter to them.
        daeken 17y ago
        EA's games are in violation of this rule, due to using Lua. Think again.
        axod 17y ago
        Then either EA will rewrite it, or they'll pay Apple a shedload of money to forget about it. They certainly won't start whining about it.
        tumult 17y ago
        No, Apply will just selectively turn a blind eye when it's convenient for them, and arbitrarily apply the restriction in other cases. Evil.
        colinplamondon 17y ago
        Expected. There's a three tier system- Tier A partners like EA, Tier B developers that are preferred by Apple, like Cultured Code, Omni, and TapTapTap, and Tier C developers, who Apple doesn't do anything special for. Kick ass for a sustained period of time and you can get into Tier B, be a multi-billion dollar company and you're Tier A. Awesome thing is, though, that you can reasonably compete as a Tier C developer with Tier B and Tier A developers, it's just that they get a head start with being featured. That's surmountable, so it's not a big deal.
    - zephyrfalcon 17y ago
      Not in the short run. There is obviously no shortage of developers (who are willing the use the mandated languages) or apps. But I do think they may regret this eventually. By excluding languages like Scheme, and many others, they are excluding developers who prefer these languages. One could argue that these developers are among the smarter and more creative ones. So, when competitors get their act together, and come out with a similar device that doesn't suck, and an app store alternative that does not have these restrictions, then this is where such developers will go. Essentially, they're providing the competition with a sizable pool of (often disgruntled) developers. There is no real competition right now, but they're making it more likely that there will be, in a year or two. Anyway, just my $0.99... :-)
- jf 17y ago
  This developer is upset because he is used to doing live development and debugging on his application from inside of Emacs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k7fjOjqZw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k7fjOjqZw I don't think that Objective-C and Xcode can do this?
bdotdub 17y ago
So, if it compiles to C in the end, how is Apple going to be able to tell how it was compiled?
- jlongster 17y ago
  Compilers usually leave some kind of footprint, usually in the form of some kind of runtime. Running `nm <myapp>` makes it pretty clear there is a Lisp system there. Still, I doubt hey would enforce it. But you can't build a business around it anymore, it's just too risky.
  - lispm 17y ago
    I guess there are some Lisp to C compilers that don't need much of a runtime. Candidates for that are Stalin, the 'Lisp to C' compiler, ThinLisp, CLICC and some others. The 'Lisp to C' compiler was developed to create readable and maintainable C code.
    - jlongster 17y ago
      You are right. There's really no way they can reliably detect where the code came from. In fact, it should be pretty difficult to generally, but unfortunately, this clause will scare off business built around this. There's also PreScheme, which is one of my favorites. It's subset of Scheme which simply generates a few C functions that use a bunch of stack variables and gotos without any runtime.
      - wtn 17y ago
        Why do you think it's unfortunate? Won't that mean less competition for anyone who can reliably pass Apple's scheme-to-C "Turing test"?
- hga 17y ago
  One glance at the C code tells you that it wasn't (directly) written by a human. The opportunity cost risk is rather high, you're betting that Apple will never figure out that you're violating the terms of the new agreement.
jcromartie 17y ago
We don't need to list every single language that (at least by the letter of the agreement) can't target iPhone OS 4.0...
- bad_user 17y ago
  Why? Many people think this is only about CS5.
- ComputerGuru 17y ago
  Maybe we don't, but clearly Apple does.
jlongster 17y ago
I just tried to call Apple at several numbers and ended up at their PR department. I left a message on some mysterious answering machine as a journalist inquiring comments about this issue. We'll see if I get a call back.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
A few things: first, I have been enjoying the author's blog posts on using Gambit-C Scheme, so this is personally annoying. Wider issues: what a bad decision on Apple's part. I used to be a huge Apple fan (I wrote the free chess program that Apple gave away when they released the Apple II, did a Mac commercial app in '84, and used to treat the 6 volumes of Inside Mac developer's guides as ancient and precious religious texts). The issues with the appstore crap-shoot are irritating, even just reading about other people's experiences. Apple is now a very valuable company and their behavior seems to be changing.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  In this, Apple is analogous to a totalitarian state. Most corporations fit this model with regards to their properties. They arbitrarily had closed off their harbors and borders (no native 3rd party iPhone apps) but then saw the opportunity to make a lot of money and opened the doors. (iPhone SDK and App Store.) We should not be surprised when a totalitarian state employs arbitrary coercive actions in its own interest, and this is not the first such maneuver by a closed source company. We should be in the mindset of people doing business in a totalitarian state. We should be aware that there is an iron hand under that velvet glove and that equitable treatment under that regime is motivated by that regime's self interest, not by a principle like the rule of law. Open Source = The Rule of Law? I never made that comparison before. (I will continue to prepare to do business in the totalitarian state, but I will be a good little merchant and try my best to avoid notice, and I won't be surprised if I find the police closing up my shop sometime.)
Luyt 17y ago
Farmageddon makes me think of that scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie where the French invaders catapult lifestock on King Arthur's party ;-)
zephyrfalcon 17y ago
I was planning to get a developer account and an iPad, and then try to write apps using Scheme (or maybe other tools that use languages that are, shall we say, more flexible than Objective-C)... I am now glad that I didn't do that yet; these recent developments make iPhone/iPad development a lot less attractive to me.
swernli 17y ago
Perhaps a nitpick, but >So, firstly, the quality of games won't change at all, and secondly, it's relatively easy to port a game from the iPhone to a different platform. The only thing they are restricting is using better, more productive tools to create games. He kind of contradicts himself there. He points out that cross-compiling makes it relatively easy to port the iPhone game to a different platform, and then says all Apple is doing is preventing people from using more powerful tools. But they are also preventing people from doing the aforementioned porting. It seems to me that when people shout, "Hey, now we won't be able to easily port our apps and games to another platform!" Apple will just say, "Exactly."
abstractbill 17y ago
I had access to a Gambit Scheme REPL from my running application, either on the simulator or the device itself. This means that, in combination with Emacs, I was able to develop my game in real-time. Literally. I was able to write code and immediately send it to my running 3d game. I'm currently working on the justin.tv iphone app, in Objectionable-C using XCode. I've gotten into a pattern of changing a few lines of code, pressing the build-and-run button, switching to Chrome and reading Hacker News for a minute or so, and finally checking the debug log output in XCode. As much as I enjoy reading HN, a REPL on the iphone would be so so awesome.
timtadh 17y ago
From my perspective, if you are a developer for Apple's iPhone/iPad platform and are disturbed by this new clause in the contract, let Apple know. Let them know by voting with you feet, and moving to a different platform. There are other touchscreen devices out there, give them your support. The reason Apple has been successful isn't just that they have nice hardware, its because of you. If they are going to disrespect you in this manner, you should feel no obligation to continue to create application for their platform. Vote with your feet: don't create iPhone/iPad apps.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  They should, but ultimately they go where the money is. Like the guy at the top of this, who describes the situation as a totalitarian state, but says he'll continue and just try to keep his head down
- rimantas 17y ago
  What would be your estimate, how many out of 185 000 apps in App Store were developed using Scheme, Closure, etc.? Also it would be interesting how many are built using Unity3d and likes. The reason Apple has been successful isn't just that they have nice hardware, its because of you. True, but let's not forget: there were no "you" when iPhone was released, but there were the reasons why it was a success. That success brought users, and users made platform interesting for developers when SDK came out. Users are here to stay, and most of the devs too. Heck, iPhone OS 4 and iPad will bring them in droves. Then we have another opportunity opening up: development of HTML5 ads for iAd. My (maybe incorrect) assumption is, that all this noise on HN is not really representative of the thinking among iPhone developers—I will even go as far as assume that the most vocal ones never did anything for iPhone and were not going to–and will have a little if any effect on general public and their opinion about iPhone/iPad and Apple.
cpr 17y ago
Actually, I think an Obj-C REPL may be one of the things that Apple unveils at WWDC. At least that's the direction they're heading with LLVM, and the head (now gone) of their whole development tools group told me (privately at WWDC a few years back) that a REPL was their ultimate goal. After all, Obj-C/Cocoa is just Smalltalk with C control structures...
aphyr 17y ago
Guys, you're all missing the point. Clearly what Apple wants is a virtual machine, implemented in Javascript, capable of running Scheme bytecodes. ;-)
sigzero 17y ago
I am a huge Apple fan. This sucks. I am seriously considering moving off the platform because of it.
expeditious 17y ago
Instead of leaving Apple for a more open platform, the author says, "lets pray they start doing a better job." Hm... I think this is exactly the kind of customer Apple wants.
cturner 17y ago
jlongster - your tooling is impressive and inspiring. What a thing to be able to develop like this. I hope you can find another platform that inspires you and that you have success with that.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
signa11 17y ago
well so is COBOL...

150 points by jlongster 17y ago

axod 17y ago

Please think before upvoting. 10 out of the top 22 stories are about this one story. We get it. Some developers are throwing a hissy fit.

tumult 17y ago
People are mad because it's clear Apple has something good going here with their mobile platforms, but they're blowing it for all of us now, including themselves.
- khelloworld 17y ago
  I'm not really sure if they are hurting themselves.
  - tumult 17y ago
    The elves will leave Middle Earth, and they will truly be left with nothing but fart apps. They need to fix this clause, fast.
    - axod 17y ago
      Definitely. After all, other closed restrictive platforms such as games consoles only contain rubbish. For every clojure zealot, there are probably 10 objective-c developers who will be happy with less competition.
      - tumult 17y ago
        This is a mistaken claim. Naughty Dog, for example, uses a precompilation phase in their games involving Lisp that builds into machine and graphics code. Most games, too, have a dynamic runtime in the form of a customized scripting engine in their game, tailored to the needs of their game. Sometimes this is done with a pre-existing language like Lua, sometimes it's built from scratch, like UnrealScript (Unreal1 - 3 engines). All of these are now banned.
        smallblacksun 17y ago
        Interpreters that run on the iphone have always been banned.
        tumult 17y ago
        Before, it was just interpreters that could load in external code, i.e. user input or the internet. Now, they are all banned.
    - khelloworld 17y ago
      As much as I'd like to agree with you, that is simply not going to happen. Do you seriously think companies/developers like EA, Cultured Code, Omni Group etc are going to leave the app store just because apps written in Scheme or Actionscript or .Net are not welcome on the app store? Again, as much as I'd like to agree with you, none of the prominent app developers are going to be leaving anytime soon. And, as for people who make Farting apps, they probably wont care anyways because use Objective-C or Actionscript, the apps are rather simple anyways. The efficiency of writing code probably wont matter to them.
      - daeken 17y ago
        EA's games are in violation of this rule, due to using Lua. Think again.
        axod 17y ago
        Then either EA will rewrite it, or they'll pay Apple a shedload of money to forget about it. They certainly won't start whining about it.
        tumult 17y ago
        No, Apply will just selectively turn a blind eye when it's convenient for them, and arbitrarily apply the restriction in other cases. Evil.
        colinplamondon 17y ago
        Expected. There's a three tier system- Tier A partners like EA, Tier B developers that are preferred by Apple, like Cultured Code, Omni, and TapTapTap, and Tier C developers, who Apple doesn't do anything special for. Kick ass for a sustained period of time and you can get into Tier B, be a multi-billion dollar company and you're Tier A. Awesome thing is, though, that you can reasonably compete as a Tier C developer with Tier B and Tier A developers, it's just that they get a head start with being featured. That's surmountable, so it's not a big deal.
  - zephyrfalcon 17y ago
    Not in the short run. There is obviously no shortage of developers (who are willing the use the mandated languages) or apps. But I do think they may regret this eventually. By excluding languages like Scheme, and many others, they are excluding developers who prefer these languages. One could argue that these developers are among the smarter and more creative ones. So, when competitors get their act together, and come out with a similar device that doesn't suck, and an app store alternative that does not have these restrictions, then this is where such developers will go. Essentially, they're providing the competition with a sizable pool of (often disgruntled) developers. There is no real competition right now, but they're making it more likely that there will be, in a year or two. Anyway, just my $0.99... :-)
jf 17y ago
This developer is upset because he is used to doing live development and debugging on his application from inside of Emacs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k7fjOjqZw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k7fjOjqZw I don't think that Objective-C and Xcode can do this?

bdotdub 17y ago

So, if it compiles to C in the end, how is Apple going to be able to tell how it was compiled?

jlongster 17y ago
Compilers usually leave some kind of footprint, usually in the form of some kind of runtime. Running `nm <myapp>` makes it pretty clear there is a Lisp system there. Still, I doubt hey would enforce it. But you can't build a business around it anymore, it's just too risky.
- lispm 17y ago
  I guess there are some Lisp to C compilers that don't need much of a runtime. Candidates for that are Stalin, the 'Lisp to C' compiler, ThinLisp, CLICC and some others. The 'Lisp to C' compiler was developed to create readable and maintainable C code.
  - jlongster 17y ago
    You are right. There's really no way they can reliably detect where the code came from. In fact, it should be pretty difficult to generally, but unfortunately, this clause will scare off business built around this. There's also PreScheme, which is one of my favorites. It's subset of Scheme which simply generates a few C functions that use a bunch of stack variables and gotos without any runtime.
    - wtn 17y ago
      Why do you think it's unfortunate? Won't that mean less competition for anyone who can reliably pass Apple's scheme-to-C "Turing test"?
hga 17y ago
One glance at the C code tells you that it wasn't (directly) written by a human. The opportunity cost risk is rather high, you're betting that Apple will never figure out that you're violating the terms of the new agreement.

jcromartie 17y ago

We don't need to list every single language that (at least by the letter of the agreement) can't target iPhone OS 4.0...

bad_user 17y ago
Why? Many people think this is only about CS5.
ComputerGuru 17y ago
Maybe we don't, but clearly Apple does.

jlongster 17y ago

I just tried to call Apple at several numbers and ended up at their PR department. I left a message on some mysterious answering machine as a journalist inquiring comments about this issue. We'll see if I get a call back.

mark_l_watson 17y ago

A few things: first, I have been enjoying the author's blog posts on using Gambit-C Scheme, so this is personally annoying. Wider issues: what a bad decision on Apple's part. I used to be a huge Apple fan (I wrote the free chess program that Apple gave away when they released the Apple II, did a Mac commercial app in '84, and used to treat the 6 volumes of Inside Mac developer's guides as ancient and precious religious texts). The issues with the appstore crap-shoot are irritating, even just reading about other people's experiences. Apple is now a very valuable company and their behavior seems to be changing.

stcredzero 17y ago
In this, Apple is analogous to a totalitarian state. Most corporations fit this model with regards to their properties. They arbitrarily had closed off their harbors and borders (no native 3rd party iPhone apps) but then saw the opportunity to make a lot of money and opened the doors. (iPhone SDK and App Store.) We should not be surprised when a totalitarian state employs arbitrary coercive actions in its own interest, and this is not the first such maneuver by a closed source company. We should be in the mindset of people doing business in a totalitarian state. We should be aware that there is an iron hand under that velvet glove and that equitable treatment under that regime is motivated by that regime's self interest, not by a principle like the rule of law. Open Source = The Rule of Law? I never made that comparison before. (I will continue to prepare to do business in the totalitarian state, but I will be a good little merchant and try my best to avoid notice, and I won't be surprised if I find the police closing up my shop sometime.)

Luyt 17y ago

Farmageddon makes me think of that scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie where the French invaders catapult lifestock on King Arthur's party ;-)

zephyrfalcon 17y ago

I was planning to get a developer account and an iPad, and then try to write apps using Scheme (or maybe other tools that use languages that are, shall we say, more flexible than Objective-C)... I am now glad that I didn't do that yet; these recent developments make iPhone/iPad development a lot less attractive to me.

swernli 17y ago

Perhaps a nitpick, but >So, firstly, the quality of games won't change at all, and secondly, it's relatively easy to port a game from the iPhone to a different platform. The only thing they are restricting is using better, more productive tools to create games. He kind of contradicts himself there. He points out that cross-compiling makes it relatively easy to port the iPhone game to a different platform, and then says all Apple is doing is preventing people from using more powerful tools. But they are also preventing people from doing the aforementioned porting. It seems to me that when people shout, "Hey, now we won't be able to easily port our apps and games to another platform!" Apple will just say, "Exactly."

abstractbill 17y ago

I had access to a Gambit Scheme REPL from my running application, either on the simulator or the device itself. This means that, in combination with Emacs, I was able to develop my game in real-time. Literally. I was able to write code and immediately send it to my running 3d game. I'm currently working on the justin.tv iphone app, in Objectionable-C using XCode. I've gotten into a pattern of changing a few lines of code, pressing the build-and-run button, switching to Chrome and reading Hacker News for a minute or so, and finally checking the debug log output in XCode. As much as I enjoy reading HN, a REPL on the iphone would be so so awesome.

timtadh 17y ago

From my perspective, if you are a developer for Apple's iPhone/iPad platform and are disturbed by this new clause in the contract, let Apple know. Let them know by voting with you feet, and moving to a different platform. There are other touchscreen devices out there, give them your support. The reason Apple has been successful isn't just that they have nice hardware, its because of you. If they are going to disrespect you in this manner, you should feel no obligation to continue to create application for their platform. Vote with your feet: don't create iPhone/iPad apps.

Psyonic 17y ago
They should, but ultimately they go where the money is. Like the guy at the top of this, who describes the situation as a totalitarian state, but says he'll continue and just try to keep his head down
rimantas 17y ago
What would be your estimate, how many out of 185 000 apps in App Store were developed using Scheme, Closure, etc.? Also it would be interesting how many are built using Unity3d and likes. The reason Apple has been successful isn't just that they have nice hardware, its because of you. True, but let's not forget: there were no "you" when iPhone was released, but there were the reasons why it was a success. That success brought users, and users made platform interesting for developers when SDK came out. Users are here to stay, and most of the devs too. Heck, iPhone OS 4 and iPad will bring them in droves. Then we have another opportunity opening up: development of HTML5 ads for iAd. My (maybe incorrect) assumption is, that all this noise on HN is not really representative of the thinking among iPhone developers—I will even go as far as assume that the most vocal ones never did anything for iPhone and were not going to–and will have a little if any effect on general public and their opinion about iPhone/iPad and Apple.

cpr 17y ago

Actually, I think an Obj-C REPL may be one of the things that Apple unveils at WWDC. At least that's the direction they're heading with LLVM, and the head (now gone) of their whole development tools group told me (privately at WWDC a few years back) that a REPL was their ultimate goal. After all, Obj-C/Cocoa is just Smalltalk with C control structures...

aphyr 17y ago

Guys, you're all missing the point. Clearly what Apple wants is a virtual machine, implemented in Javascript, capable of running Scheme bytecodes. ;-)

sigzero 17y ago

I am a huge Apple fan. This sucks. I am seriously considering moving off the platform because of it.

expeditious 17y ago

Instead of leaving Apple for a more open platform, the author says, "lets pray they start doing a better job." Hm... I think this is exactly the kind of customer Apple wants.

cturner 17y ago

jlongster - your tooling is impressive and inspiring. What a thing to be able to develop like this. I hope you can find another platform that inspires you and that you have success with that.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

signa11 17y ago

well so is COBOL...