3 ms·

So we have: Translated from Flash to Objective-C by hand: OK Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK The good news, I guess, is that

by jcl 16y ago

So we have: Translated from Flash to Objective-C by hand: OK Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK The good news, I guess, is that Apple is apparently confirming that "originally written in Objective-C" doesn't mean "the first concrete representation of the program was in Objective-C", which means people are free to prototype an app in whatever language they want, as long as they totally rewrite it in Objective-C by hand.

tvon 16y ago
> Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK Assuming you're referring to the CS5 feature, it converts Flash to byte-code, not Objective-C.
- jcl 16y ago
  While it's true that CS5 converts Flash to bytecode, Apple's rejection of RunRev's proposal suggests that Flash programs would have been rejected even if CS5 had translated to Objective-C. http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-blog/revmobile-and-apples-iphone-sdk-agreement http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-blog/revmobile-and-appl...
jodrellblank 16y ago
No we don't, we have: Rewritten in Objective-C: OK Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK It's like the difference between hiring a translator and using Google translate or hiring a typist versus using speech recognition. [Edited for clarity: meant to change translated by hand to rewritten by intelligent human, and keep the second one the same].
- endtime 16y ago
  I don't see how "Machine translation" is any different than "Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program".
  - jodrellblank 16y ago
    It isn't, the change I made was from translated by human to rewritten by human, and the distinguishing bit of that change is human versus machine. The parent was implying some kind of double standard where the "computing device" doing the change made a difference but shouldn't, and I was pointing out that the human isn't "mechanically translating", but "reinterpreting / rewriting". I just didn't write it out very clearly that the second one is the same. Will edit.

by jcl 16y ago

tvon 16y ago

> Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK Assuming you're referring to the CS5 feature, it converts Flash to byte-code, not Objective-C.

jcl 16y ago
While it's true that CS5 converts Flash to bytecode, Apple's rejection of RunRev's proposal suggests that Flash programs would have been rejected even if CS5 had translated to Objective-C. http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-blog/revmobile-and-apples-iphone-sdk-agreement http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-blog/revmobile-and-appl...

jodrellblank 16y ago

No we don't, we have: Rewritten in Objective-C: OK Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program: Not OK It's like the difference between hiring a translator and using Google translate or hiring a typist versus using speech recognition. [Edited for clarity: meant to change translated by hand to rewritten by intelligent human, and keep the second one the same].

endtime 16y ago
I don't see how "Machine translation" is any different than "Translated from Flash to Objective-C by computer program".
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  It isn't, the change I made was from translated by human to rewritten by human, and the distinguishing bit of that change is human versus machine. The parent was implying some kind of double standard where the "computing device" doing the change made a difference but shouldn't, and I was pointing out that the human isn't "mechanically translating", but "reinterpreting / rewriting". I just didn't write it out very clearly that the second one is the same. Will edit.