4 ms·

I think a careful implementation of Lua integration 'avoids' 3.3.1 but 3.3.2 which forbids interpreted languages (except those within the official SDK) catches

I think a careful implementation of Lua integration 'avoids' 3.3.1 but 3.3.2 which forbids interpreted languages (except those within the official SDK) catches it.

olefoo 17y ago
From what I've seen, the ban on interpreters is very much aimed at options that allow an end user to download and run scripts and if that is the case, expect Apple to clarify that, particularly if they are getting pushback from the larger grossing game houses. The ostensible reason for the ban on interpreters is that allowing third party scripts would be a security risk; which is true to a point. But, we all know that it functions to keep the App Store as the only source of software.
- WildUtah 17y ago
  /the ban on interpreters is very much aimed at options that allow an end user to download and run scripts/ That's why 3.3.2 used to prohibit only apps that download and run scripts. Now it prohibits apps that download or run scripts. So that should take care of those folks polluting the iPhone with the Lua.
jcl 17y ago
I don't understand how that could be... Could you explain? If a portion of your app is written in Lua, how can you claim that the app is "originally written" in a C derivative?
- dazzawazza 17y ago
  It's a technicality of course but you can rightly claim that the app is written in C and that it interprets the Lua code. In the same way it may interpret and XML file. Of course we all know this is a technicality and it doesn't matter since 3.3.2 states "... No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application...". The two clauses combine to put Lua on a sticky wicket. Certainly for video games it's not as if there is a slim C layer and the vast bulk is written in Lua. Most game engines are huge and only game flow and AI are written in Lua.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    No you can't rightly claim that. The C is an intermediary translation layer.
    - dazzawazza 17y ago
      Correct. So you carefully craft it so that it doesn't "...link to Documented APIs... " i.e. it only interfaces with your application. It's all tenuous I agree.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    In the previous version of the Agreement, 3.3.2 stated "... No interpreted code may be downloaded AND used in an Application..." Using an embedded interpreter that only ran the signed code inside your app bundle was previously quasi-legit -- it was more narrowly restricting the use of an interpreter to bypass the App Store review process.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      They changed that AND to an OR a while ago, before this recent announcement. So basically that reduces down to: no interpreters. So these games using Lua were already breaking Apple's rules.

I think a careful implementation of Lua integration 'avoids' 3.3.1 but 3.3.2 which forbids interpreted languages (except those within the official SDK) catches it.

olefoo 17y ago

From what I've seen, the ban on interpreters is very much aimed at options that allow an end user to download and run scripts and if that is the case, expect Apple to clarify that, particularly if they are getting pushback from the larger grossing game houses. The ostensible reason for the ban on interpreters is that allowing third party scripts would be a security risk; which is true to a point. But, we all know that it functions to keep the App Store as the only source of software.

WildUtah 17y ago
/the ban on interpreters is very much aimed at options that allow an end user to download and run scripts/ That's why 3.3.2 used to prohibit only apps that download and run scripts. Now it prohibits apps that download or run scripts. So that should take care of those folks polluting the iPhone with the Lua.

jcl 17y ago

I don't understand how that could be... Could you explain? If a portion of your app is written in Lua, how can you claim that the app is "originally written" in a C derivative?

dazzawazza 17y ago
It's a technicality of course but you can rightly claim that the app is written in C and that it interprets the Lua code. In the same way it may interpret and XML file. Of course we all know this is a technicality and it doesn't matter since 3.3.2 states "... No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application...". The two clauses combine to put Lua on a sticky wicket. Certainly for video games it's not as if there is a slim C layer and the vast bulk is written in Lua. Most game engines are huge and only game flow and AI are written in Lua.
- barrkel 17y ago
  No you can't rightly claim that. The C is an intermediary translation layer.
  - dazzawazza 17y ago
    Correct. So you carefully craft it so that it doesn't "...link to Documented APIs... " i.e. it only interfaces with your application. It's all tenuous I agree.
- blasdel 17y ago
  In the previous version of the Agreement, 3.3.2 stated "... No interpreted code may be downloaded AND used in an Application..." Using an embedded interpreter that only ran the signed code inside your app bundle was previously quasi-legit -- it was more narrowly restricting the use of an interpreter to bypass the App Store review process.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    They changed that AND to an OR a while ago, before this recent announcement. So basically that reduces down to: no interpreters. So these games using Lua were already breaking Apple's rules.