4 ms·
This gets my vote simply because I won't be forced to use an otherwise unmarketable language like Objective C. Not that I hate the syntax...it's not that bad re
by rufugee 17y ago
This gets my vote simply because I won't be forced to use an otherwise unmarketable language like Objective C. Not that I hate the syntax...it's not that bad really...but I hate that I'm forced to learn it just for iPhone or OS X development. I can't really use it elsewhere. With Mono/C# that's not the case, and it's immediately worth it. I hope they'll target other phones and make it at least possible to migrate your app from one to the other, but a quick glance at the tutorials makes me suspect this is very bound to the iPhone.
I'm also more than a little concerned that you have to pay for the dev environment itself (with an evaluation version on the way). I really hate this model. They should've gone the route of giving away to tools themselves for free, but charging upon the need to deploy. This allows developers like me to vet the platform before spending hard-earned dollars.
- corey 17y ago> This gets my vote simply because I won't be forced to use an otherwise unmarketable language like Objective C I don't understand this argument. If you're already familiar with object oriented programming, it should only take you a day or two to learn Objective-C. This won't save you from having to learn Cocoa Touch, which is where the real time investment is.
- jorgem 17y ago>> it should only take you a day or two to learn Objective-C It's the libraries! Takes a long time to learn them all...
- pmjordan 17y agoExcept even MonoTouch presumably just has .NET bindings for UIKit, in much the same way there is Cocoa# for writing GUI mac apps with Mono. The difference here is mainly AOT compilation for ARM plus some different system bindings and maybe an optimised memory footprint. The GUI library issue is the same on all platforms really. No matter what language you're using, the interface is going to be a wrapper for the underlying System API, which is either a C, C++, or Objective-C library.
- mdeicaza 17y agoWe are looking at fixing this. There will be a free eval that will not require you to buy until you are ready to test/deploy on the device.
- rufugee 17y agoGreat news thanks...that is the way to do it!
- antonovka 17y agoNot being able to measure on-device performance and stability during evaluation is a pretty big deal. The simulator is only useful as a smoke test, even when using the native tools.
- rufugee 17y agoActually, that's a very good point. I guess my wish is that one could deploy to a device, but not actually upload to the appstore or sell without a license. Testing on a device is absolutely crucial...
- ryanpetrich 17y agoPerhaps a mandatory nag screen at startup for binaries generated with the evaluation edition?
- jcl 17y agoOr perhaps display a page from the Kama Sutra? That ought to keep it out of the App Store. :)