4 ms·
I wish Apple would drop this entirely. The biggest thing it does is force you as a developer to use their tools. The actual benefits are very limited. It would
by bluejekyll 10y ago
I wish Apple would drop this entirely. The biggest thing it does is force you as a developer to use their tools. The actual benefits are very limited.
It would be more interesting if they encouraged source uploads, they built an entire CI/CD system for testing and releasing your code. Then they could recompile for anyone opting to use that.
For some background, read this on Rust and bitcode targets for Apple devices (only appleTV and appleWatch require bitcode, it's optional for everything else): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35968 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35968
- dguido 10y agoSomething I've learned from being a consultant is that there are an infinite number of possible build system configurations for real applications. Apple gets the best of all worlds by asking for bitcode since it abstracts any unique requirements on the developer end but provides them with something of nearly identical utility as source code.
- bluejekyll 10y agoIt's not though... its not CPU architecture independent, source code is, or can be.