6 ms·

Symbian didn't provide a UI. Mobile phone manufacturers applied their own on top. Series 60 was Nokia's chosen UI, and the API was appalling. But yes, Symbian C

Symbian didn't provide a UI. Mobile phone manufacturers applied their own on top. Series 60 was Nokia's chosen UI, and the API was appalling. But yes, Symbian C++ was a difficult paradigm for newcomers to get their head around.

usr1106 6y ago
In the very old days Symbian did not provide a UI. Around 2003:ish Nokia was the only Symbian licensee left and they had even 3 UIs: Series 60, Series 80 and Series 90. Only Series 60 survived. Series 80 had 2 products and Series 90 one public prototype. Series 90 was the only with touch input originally. Series 60 got touch after the iPhone, but that was too late. Yes, Symbian C++ was too difficult even inside Nokia. Productivity was very low, many products got cancelled before seeing the market and those who did were massively delayed.
- girvo 6y ago
  I don’t believe that is correct: Sony Ericsson had the UIQ3 interface on top of Symbian — my favourite phone of all time, the M600i ran it. That was 2005, 2006. A few more UIQ3 smartphones were released after that, as well.
  - usr1106 6y ago
    Wikipedia claims that UIQ company went bankrupt only 2009. If that is correct I remembered the history wrong. So they still tried while Symbian was 100% owned by Nokia.
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  I remember that Symbian C++ just like QT back in the day barely looked like C++ with all annotations and macros. You basically had to learn a new very ugly language for no good reason. Also it seemed that there was no way to earn money on apps as the friction to buy apps where too big.
  - usr1106 6y ago
    > You basically had to learn a new very ugly language for no good reason. Agree with the ugly. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some say it was an engineering master piece of the 1990s. But it was different from everything else and it was difficult, I don't think this can be disputed. The no good reason is not the whole truth: * When Symbian (then called EPOC32) was developed there was no C++ compiler that supported exceptions without major problems. "Don't use them" was typical in style guides at the time. So EPOC came up with their own macro hackeries instead, which worked when used correctly. The latter was too difficult for many developers. * Early devices had just single digits of megabytes of RAM. So 500 times less than a phone of today. More macro trickeries to save Bytes were the answer.
    - danielscrubs 6y ago
      I’ll give you that the c++ exceptions had some issues if you agree that they should have removed the macro hackeries as soon as c++ exceptions was the norm. QT also had their own signal implementation with macro hacks way longer than necessary (maybe still do?)
- secondcoming 6y ago
  > Around 2003:ish Nokia was the only Symbian licensee left That's definitely not true. I joined Symbian in 2005 and there were lots of licensees around. I think 2005/2006 were the glory years of the company.

usr1106 6y ago

In the very old days Symbian did not provide a UI. Around 2003:ish Nokia was the only Symbian licensee left and they had even 3 UIs: Series 60, Series 80 and Series 90. Only Series 60 survived. Series 80 had 2 products and Series 90 one public prototype. Series 90 was the only with touch input originally. Series 60 got touch after the iPhone, but that was too late. Yes, Symbian C++ was too difficult even inside Nokia. Productivity was very low, many products got cancelled before seeing the market and those who did were massively delayed.

girvo 6y ago
I don’t believe that is correct: Sony Ericsson had the UIQ3 interface on top of Symbian — my favourite phone of all time, the M600i ran it. That was 2005, 2006. A few more UIQ3 smartphones were released after that, as well.
- usr1106 6y ago
  Wikipedia claims that UIQ company went bankrupt only 2009. If that is correct I remembered the history wrong. So they still tried while Symbian was 100% owned by Nokia.
danielscrubs 6y ago
I remember that Symbian C++ just like QT back in the day barely looked like C++ with all annotations and macros. You basically had to learn a new very ugly language for no good reason. Also it seemed that there was no way to earn money on apps as the friction to buy apps where too big.
- usr1106 6y ago
  > You basically had to learn a new very ugly language for no good reason. Agree with the ugly. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some say it was an engineering master piece of the 1990s. But it was different from everything else and it was difficult, I don't think this can be disputed. The no good reason is not the whole truth: * When Symbian (then called EPOC32) was developed there was no C++ compiler that supported exceptions without major problems. "Don't use them" was typical in style guides at the time. So EPOC came up with their own macro hackeries instead, which worked when used correctly. The latter was too difficult for many developers. * Early devices had just single digits of megabytes of RAM. So 500 times less than a phone of today. More macro trickeries to save Bytes were the answer.
  - danielscrubs 6y ago
    I’ll give you that the c++ exceptions had some issues if you agree that they should have removed the macro hackeries as soon as c++ exceptions was the norm. QT also had their own signal implementation with macro hacks way longer than necessary (maybe still do?)
secondcoming 6y ago
> Around 2003:ish Nokia was the only Symbian licensee left That's definitely not true. I joined Symbian in 2005 and there were lots of licensees around. I think 2005/2006 were the glory years of the company.