3 ms·

Why could they not have make architecture independent Bitcode instead? Would that not have been useful?

• Reason077 4y ago
  Useful, certainly. But an awful lot more complex, too.
• mmastrac 4y ago
  Apple has never really been a bytecode company. I can't imagine them tossing this philosophy out the window and going all in on a virtual machine like Android does. Like it or hate it, Apple is and probably always will ship native bits for applications.
  • Moto7451 4y ago
    Boosting this comment, Apple tried to make Java a first class citizen twice between WebObjects and a Cocoa bridge. Developers did not want that.
    • pjmlp 4y ago
      The story goes around a bit different, first of all, Web Objects was fully migrated to Java, and the last big user of it was the iTunes store. Secondly, the main reason for the Cocoa bridge was not to force developers to use Java, rather they were uncertain that a community grown in Object Pascal and C++, would be happy to jump into Objective-C and its syntax full of [] and @. When they saw that Objective-C wasn't having any adoption blockers, they dropped Cocoa Bridge.