3 ms·
Stop spreading FUD. iPhone devs would not have licensing issues. How about I point you to a number of frameworks that iPhone developers ship with today and hav
by pkaler 16y ago
Stop spreading FUD. iPhone devs would not have licensing issues. How about I point you to a number of frameworks that iPhone developers ship with today and have been shipping with since near day one.
http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Facebook_iPhone_SDK
http://code.google.com/p/gdata-objectivec-client/
http://github.com/facebook/three20
http://code.google.com/p/touchcode/
http://code.google.com/p/oolongengine/
http://code.google.com/p/cocos2d-iphone/
- stcredzero 16y agoThese don't go against 3.3.1? If so, I stand corrected.
- halostatue 16y agoThey're all C++ or Objective-C. It's one of the insidious points of 3.3.1 that you can't used alternative languages (and it's questionable whether you could even use grammars or other code generators), but pure Obj-C or C++ libraries are all okay as long as they're statically linked.
- dieterrams 16y agoThere's actually plenty of precedent for scripting/interpreted languages being perfectly acceptable. Many emulators have been approved, as have games using Torque and Unity. And it's certain that plenty of games on the App Store are using Lua.
- easp 16y agoI thought the clause in question was for iPhone SDK 4 apps. Since v4 isn't shipping yet, it doesn't apply to any of the apps in the store now. As for the question of interpreters, I though for the current generation of apps, the issue was with 3rd party interpreters that allow the interpretation of arbitrary code. Code that is embedded in the app at approval time isn't an issue. Isn't this why frotz can only run games that are bundled with the interpreter when it is distributed through the store.
- veemjeem 16y agono