Hacker News Reader

Wax looks really interesting (since I don't really have an urge to go back to non-dynamic language development), but I don't immediately see how this gets around the "no interpreters" rule for getting into the app store. It looks like one app using Wax, by the creator of the project, has done so, but I'm not sure how.

View on HN

Apple doesn't seem to notice unless you're using a widely-known toolset that they can easily detect, and even then, they miss quite a bit.

Not that this means it's a good idea to include an interpreter under the assumption that Apple won't notice -- if they do notice & care, you'll find you will no longer be able to update your app.

Apple has also demonstrated a history of caring about certain violations at the most inopportune times -- lots of camera applications broke when 3.0 was released, and Apple wouldn't let the authors release updates, since the only way to implement the required functionality was through undocumented API.

I believe Apple's primary concern is disallowing the installation of a VM such as Flash that could be used to host applications unauthorized by Apple.

In the case of Wax, Lua is embedded in the application itself and doesn't provide a VM which can host other applications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com