4 ms·

No native development kit is a non-starter for me personally. Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it w

No native development kit is a non-starter for me personally. Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it wasn't successful -- and it wasn't just the state of JavaScript technology at the time. If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can. Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. Different goals, different requirements.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK that I personally believe are not going to be resolvable in the next 2-3 years, even with asm.js and all the other great things Mozilla is doing to advance the web. I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. I personally find your for-profit argument specious at best.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place. > There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose. > I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. Sure, and that's why you might need a native SDK, not why Mozilla needs one.
    - comex 13y ago
      Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're some ways off from the point that it is likely to be a strong competitor to the major players in that field. The arguments that Firefox OS can't survive seem very similar to the ones that ChromeOS couldn't.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a native alternative to the HTML5/JS or whatever non-native APIs they're providing. Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, but non-native stuff is a long ways from the battery life and performance metrics that native apps can provide. The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". Mozilla's purpose is to advance the open web. Firefox OS is a means to that end, promoting a platform with that name independent of its actual nature is not an end to itself. > To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a pragmatic alternative to the HTML5/JS APIs. The entire premise of Firefox OS, and the only reason that offering it is consistent with Mozilla's organizational purpose, is that Mozilla believes that this is false. > Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, That would be, IMO, a very big success in advancing Mozilla's mission, though probably less than they hope Firefox OS can provide. > This "all web" viewpoint you seem to be sold on is not sufficiently pragmatic. I'm not "sold" on it; I suspect that Firefox OS may well be premature. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a conventional mobile OS of the type you suggest Firefox should be, with native development along with web technologies, is completely useless for the purpose for which Mozilla exists. > The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job. So? Firefox OS doesn't have to be suitable for every job for it to survive, or for it to advance Mozilla's purposes.
- duaneb 13y ago
  > Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. So why on earth are they making a phone? It's a piece of hardware, kind of weird/painful that I still have to go through javascript. The best fix for this is compiling to javascript, which is distinctly unappealing.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can. Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. Different goals, different requirements.

binarycrusader 13y ago
The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK that I personally believe are not going to be resolvable in the next 2-3 years, even with asm.js and all the other great things Mozilla is doing to advance the web. I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. I personally find your for-profit argument specious at best.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place. > There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose. > I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. Sure, and that's why you might need a native SDK, not why Mozilla needs one.
  - comex 13y ago
    Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're some ways off from the point that it is likely to be a strong competitor to the major players in that field. The arguments that Firefox OS can't survive seem very similar to the ones that ChromeOS couldn't.
      - binarycrusader 13y ago
        I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a native alternative to the HTML5/JS or whatever non-native APIs they're providing. Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, but non-native stuff is a long ways from the battery life and performance metrics that native apps can provide. The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". Mozilla's purpose is to advance the open web. Firefox OS is a means to that end, promoting a platform with that name independent of its actual nature is not an end to itself. > To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a pragmatic alternative to the HTML5/JS APIs. The entire premise of Firefox OS, and the only reason that offering it is consistent with Mozilla's organizational purpose, is that Mozilla believes that this is false. > Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, That would be, IMO, a very big success in advancing Mozilla's mission, though probably less than they hope Firefox OS can provide. > This "all web" viewpoint you seem to be sold on is not sufficiently pragmatic. I'm not "sold" on it; I suspect that Firefox OS may well be premature. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a conventional mobile OS of the type you suggest Firefox should be, with native development along with web technologies, is completely useless for the purpose for which Mozilla exists. > The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job. So? Firefox OS doesn't have to be suitable for every job for it to survive, or for it to advance Mozilla's purposes.
duaneb 13y ago
> Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. So why on earth are they making a phone? It's a piece of hardware, kind of weird/painful that I still have to go through javascript. The best fix for this is compiling to javascript, which is distinctly unappealing.