4 ms·

You can't create a guitar with a guitar either. Programming is only one type of creation, and not every computing device must support programming. The mindset t

You can't create a guitar with a guitar either. Programming is only one type of creation, and not every computing device must support programming. The mindset that "computers are for computing" is holding the industry back. The author makes the argument that if you can't create applications for the iPad with the iPad, youth will experience a disincentive to build programs. I posit two things: A) That disincentive is offset by the appeal of the iOS platform and the "magic" of a solid touch platform (hardware and software) B) Not every musician wants to make their own instrument The author also holds up the rejection of Scratch as proof of his other arguments. I view applications like Scratch as a distinct issue, separate from "professional" application tools on iOS. I understand why Apple doesn't want to allow tools like Scratch -- because they don't want to create loopholes -- but I do find it disappointing that they don't make an exception for educational products. I've not seen a computing device that reaches kids like the iPad does, and it would be great if we could at least introduce them to the concept directly on the iPad. I believe there is a big opportunity here for web app developers to fill a void. Take a look at CoffeeScript. If someone can re-package Javascript in a way that resembles Ruby, I don't see why that template couldn't be pushed further.

brudgers 16y ago
The issue with client side Javascript is that innovative code cannot be effectively kept private.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  This is the case for every website you visit, yet it doesn't seem to be a problem. Technology people often make the mistake of believing that the technology is the product. I believe we've passed the time in computing where that is a requirement. Anyone can grab a text editor and hammer out some code. What makes a product great is the confluence of all the factors that you can't write in code. The application is part of the equation. I'm not arguing that the code can be bad; I'm arguing that you need more. For example, GitHub is driven by git. This is a tool that anyone can download and use. The entire GitHub interface is HTML/JS. I could run through and rip off every bit of their interface code and I'd be a large portion of the way toward running my own GitHub. There's the issue of the server-side code and scalability, but these are problems I can solve with a reasonable up-front investment and iterative problem-solving, just like everyone else. What I can't clone is the community and spirit of GitHub. If the success of your organization relies on the inability of your competitors to copy your product, you have a much bigger problem.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    The argument is that the javascript development is a reasonable substitute for native programming - and in terms of protecting trade secrets it is not.
- lukifer 16y ago
  For people who are truly concerned about it, I think that obfuscators do a good enough job for most non-enterprise purposes. Also, from the perspective of education, this is actually a feature: it's very easy to learn from other people's Javascript code, and there's plenty to look at on nearly every website.

brudgers 16y ago

The issue with client side Javascript is that innovative code cannot be effectively kept private.

bradleyland 16y ago
This is the case for every website you visit, yet it doesn't seem to be a problem. Technology people often make the mistake of believing that the technology is the product. I believe we've passed the time in computing where that is a requirement. Anyone can grab a text editor and hammer out some code. What makes a product great is the confluence of all the factors that you can't write in code. The application is part of the equation. I'm not arguing that the code can be bad; I'm arguing that you need more. For example, GitHub is driven by git. This is a tool that anyone can download and use. The entire GitHub interface is HTML/JS. I could run through and rip off every bit of their interface code and I'd be a large portion of the way toward running my own GitHub. There's the issue of the server-side code and scalability, but these are problems I can solve with a reasonable up-front investment and iterative problem-solving, just like everyone else. What I can't clone is the community and spirit of GitHub. If the success of your organization relies on the inability of your competitors to copy your product, you have a much bigger problem.
- brudgers 16y ago
  The argument is that the javascript development is a reasonable substitute for native programming - and in terms of protecting trade secrets it is not.
lukifer 16y ago
For people who are truly concerned about it, I think that obfuscators do a good enough job for most non-enterprise purposes. Also, from the perspective of education, this is actually a feature: it's very easy to learn from other people's Javascript code, and there's plenty to look at on nearly every website.