People made the same arguments when Jobs killed the floppy. And serial ports.
And OS 9.
And built-in modems.
Surprisingly, nobody misses them.
Yawn. More histrionic nerd-posturing. It will be forgotten soon enough.
And OS 9.
And built-in modems.
Surprisingly, nobody misses them.
Yawn. More histrionic nerd-posturing. It will be forgotten soon enough.
That is, if you had a floppy disk that you had to read, there was a workaround, even if Macs stopped supporting them natively.
There is no adapter/peripheral/workaround to view some website with Flash that you want to view. (Unless you consider it a workaround to carry, alongside your iPad, a laptop so that you can view websites that haven't yet transitioned to HTML5)
Overall, as a developer I'm highly in favor of open platforms, language choice, etc. However, I can't help but thinking that a tightly controlled application space the way that Apple has maintained so far is what has helped make the iPhone and iPad successful. One thing I notice on android is the lack of consistency in UIs. Sometimes the back button takes me back a screen in an App - sometimes it dumps me back to the Home screen. Sometimes it dumps me back to the last App I was using.
The iPhone apps tend to look relatively uniform UI wise and behave as expected. Encouraging the idea of cross platform apps means you start to get less and less "platform integration". It means we end up with 4 or 5 smartphone platforms none of which have any advantage because they're all running inconsistent crap.
I want my hardware + software platforms to be able to be unique and tailored towards themselves. I have seen very few truly cross platform apps which actually work well. iTunes itself is a great example - it acts weirdly and looks woefully out of place on Windows. It's the ugly duckling, and it behaves like someone chopped one of it's legs off.
The benefits of tailoring software to a particular platform should be obvious, and I much prefer them.
And as another poster wrote, we can always vote with our dollars.
Built-in modems aren't dead, they are still on a surprisingly number of laptops.
He killed OS 9 so he could sell OS X. That's like saying Microsoft killed Win95. That's planned obsolescence.
How else could one be said to have "killed" Turing equivalence unless it didn't remain after other source languages were excluded?
Melodrama trumps computer science today?
(As I understand it, JavaScript doesn't belong on the list. It's permitted, but some of the Cocoa Touch API isn't accessible, so it's not really a substitute for the others.)
Your opinion of the languages does not trump the reality that the overwhelming majority of iPhone OS applications were written in them, as was the OS itself, even when it was not a requirement. Trying to make it sound like recent changes to the App Store agreement are the only reason people use Objective-C is a big stretch.
Melodrama: (noun) a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions. Language, behavior, or events that resemble drama of this kind.
This is exactly like a "Won't somebody think of the children?" appeal. What else do you call it when the company rejects both a programming tool and a dictionary for "bad language?"
If you want to make a case that they are making emotionally overwrought appeals, you should have the decency to provide a direct quote to make your case. Abusing quotations marks by putting them around your own subjective interpretation just tells me that you've got nothing to offer.
(see http://www.macruby.org/)