2 ms·
I was also sold on that "If you stumble on an issue and you don’t know what’s under the hood it is likely you’ll need much more time (possibly all the time you
by EdisonW 14y ago
I was also sold on that "If you stumble on an issue and you don’t know what’s under the hood it is likely you’ll need much more time (possibly all the time you have saved in advance by using the tool) to find out a way to fix it or a workaround."
This is a problem with current HTML5 -> Native frameworks as well, you have to know what's under the hood so that you can make efficient designs.
- JackC 14y agoI'm curious about this ... how much more is "under the hood" of a RubyMotion app than an ObjC app? In the HTML5 -> Native tools you're dealing with an extra abstraction, Javascript running on top of an interpreter that talks to native APIs, which becomes a problem if you need to use the native APIs in a way the interpreter designers didn't think of. But RubyMotion isn't a layer on top of native code, it is native code -- it's a Ruby->machine code compiler. So is there any more standing between you and the hardware than there is if you use XCode? Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the architecture ...
- funkyboy 14y agoLike I have said it is just a "language layer" around Cocoa API, there are no extra, built-on-top classes/things. Instead of writing Obj-c you write Ruby, but the behavior is the same.