Slashdot Mirror
Novell Bringing .Net Developers To Apple iPad
GMGruman writes "Paul Krill reports that Apple's new iPad could be easier to write apps for, thanks to Novell's MonoTouch development platform, which helps .Net developers create code for the iPad and fully comply with Apple's licensing requirements — without having to use Apple's preferred Objective-C. This news falls on the footsteps of news that Citrix will release an iPad app that lets users run Windows sessions on the iPad. These two developments bolster an argument that the iPad could eventually displace the netbook."
I'm not a programmer myself so can someone tell me if C# really easier to use than C or Objective C as stated in TFA? Or is it just a matter of there being more people who are familiar with it?
This ain't rocket surgery.
The iPad is one product...Netbooks are a genre of device. Add to that the aversion of folks like me to using anything put out by Apple, and I don't see much chance of the iPad replacing a whole genre of DIY-friendly hardware.
Jesus christ stop with the Apple spam.
There are already RDP clients for the iPhone and Mono Touch isn't freaking new.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It's getting like Steve jobs twitter page around here.
As someone who's programmed both in .net and for the iPhone, I can't imagine that being able to program in .net would be an advantage. Both are adequate for making windowing systems, but the paradigm is different.
Seriously, Objective-C isn't that hard; if you can't learn it in a day or two (or at most a week) then you are probably not a professional programmer.
Qxe4
... the next 60 days, amirite?
The iPad has been officially announced for all of two days, a vanishingly small portion of people have actually spent any time playing with one, and the world is already full of vociferous opinions about its prospects for (pick one) dismal failure/niche success/displacing netbooks/world domination. Like this one:
Because of its price and lack of perennial netbook features, such as a physical keyboard.
Looks to me like it doesn't lack for a physical keyboard, even if it's not permanently attached. Will that be a problem for literal laptop users? Maybe. If I were betting, though, I'd guess that it'll be good enough that Apple's sales will compare with the top 3 netbook manufacturers.
I'm not betting, however, because like most of the planet, I haven't had a chance to really play with one, and therefore don't have a very solid idea what I'm talking about.
Tweet, tweet.
News Flash - You still need a Mac for installing the iPhone SDK and Mono.
You still pay the Apple hardware tax.
Umm, Metaphorically or Inquisitively? and Umm, How often?
I'm not seeing the iPad displacing the netbook even with .net. The problem isn't that developers can't develop well, the problem is that Apple doesn't let developers do much with iPhone OS. The nice thing about a netbook or a cheap laptop is I can run multiple things. I can keep my Facebook open, my IM open, play music on YouTube and type on a document all at the same time. These are basic things that people do daily, the lack of a major component of today's web (Flash) and the lack of an ability to multi-task is going to kill any chance the iPad had to survive much faster than anything else other than the steep price.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It's an annual cost, not a one-time cost, and it makes one of the most important things about open source software far more difficult than it should be, namely taking the source code and adapting it for your own needs.
I'd be very interested in this but the last time I check it doesn't support .NET's remoting API's such as webservices.
I'd want to be able to make rich thin clients that talk to application layer servers but Apple always make sure the garden is well walled.
I'm getting a good laugh out of all the folks damning the iPhone for it's lack of explicit multi-tasking.
Sigh. If one wants to oversimplify there have been two great visions presented in computing. One was eberharts classic video showing off mouse and button based editing, along with cellular communications. If you've never watched it, you have no idea what you have missed. Prepare to crap your pants.
The other is Raskin's dream of the info appliance. A device that has no specific function but morphs itself into the perfect dedicated human interaction device for whatever task is needed. It does not multi task. It does not improve a perfectly weighted japanese sushi knife to attach car steering wheel and fire extinguisher to it just in case you need to multi-task. Each item itself has all the controls and human interface it needs for it's task and only that.
In raskin's vision, the appliance would never need instructions. it would be as obvious how to use it as a hammer is.
The ipad is the closest (practical sized) realization of that to date. it's 1.5 times the width of your fingers so it balances perfectly in one hand. when you have a task it dedicated it's surface to becoming the perfect human perceptual interface you need just for that task.
The key here is that Even a 1 year old understands the iphone interface. It's task specificity is intuitive.
Moreover you don't really want multi-taksing. You think you do but what you really mean is you want to beable to context swtich easily and for cases where apps need to interact that they do so in the way you want them to. Multi-tasking is a dumb way to do this. it puts the load for managing the interaction on the human not the device. The iphone os does most of the connections you want. The addressbook is ubiquitous, apps can send e-mail and get web pages. etc... In the future this conduit management will be handled more and more by the computer as it should be. Context switching will be transparent because the computer will anticipate your next move and have pre-warmed it. etc...
Multi-tasking is just the current way we approximate implement this metafore for the device that simply changes into what we need at that moment by itself. You don't really want multi-tasking you want that effect.
For example, people insisted background processing was needed to handle incoming e-mail or other daemon tasks for apps. But the vast majority of those needs (though definitiely not all) are now served much better by the push notification deamon that apple implemented. See background processing was just one way to solve that problem that you were used. You did not need it and you are now better off without it.
interestingly it's claimed that OSX was originally going to behave that way at Job's request. there's a hidden mode switch (in the defaults.write ) that will change the interface so only one app is visible at a time. the others snap to the dock at each context switch. I activated that for my mother and here ability to use the computer skyrocketed. I've tried it myself, and because I multi-task a lot I do find the transistions annoying. But I have to admit it really does de clutter and improve how you interface with an app. I just find the implementation to clunky to tolerate and I miss my multi-tasking view. The iphone OS enforces this work mode and anyone who has used one can see how well it works in the small format device.
It's raskin's dream incarnate. This is why other devices that don't get what's being created here are going to fail.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Shouldn't we be waiting until, oh I don't know, the device actually is released and we can see how this whole thing plays out?
It's almost like Slashdot is perpetually trying to make up for that whole "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." thing.
#DeleteChrome
Objective-C rocks, really. But! If you don't know it, and you have an existing code base in C#, maybe this would be useful. I guess. I think this is not aimed at making iPhone/iPad app development easier in general, but rather, specifically for people who are already using C#. In which case, it's not totally stupid. Just mostly stupid.
FWIW, I'm currently at the "okay, that's the basic functionality, now what do I do next?" phase of developing an iPhone app. From "never even looked at the docs" to "working multitouch and graphics" took me, oh, a good solid two evenings.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Perhaps, but as a woman I can definitely tell you that all my women friends have agreed it's an unfortunate name because the first thing it makes us think of is feminine hygiene products.
What on earth are you going on about? It's not offensive, just awkward. It lacks cachet, which is a bit surprising. Even iSlate would've been so much better -- though really, haven't we all had enough of the "i" thing? It's so '90s...
Caveat Utilitor
So a Linux company is bringing Microsoft development to an Apple device? And it's STILL useless?
The problem isn't that developers can't develop well, the problem is that Apple doesn't let developers do much with iPhone OS.
I guess all 140K applications do the same exact thing? Since Apple "doesn't et you do much".
The reality is that Apple has a few areas they don't let you go, but everything else is wide open.
The nice thing about a netbook or a cheap laptop is I can run multiple things. I can keep my Facebook open, my IM open, play music on YouTube and type on a document all at the same time.
And on an iPad (or iPhone) you can play music while you type a document, and get a stream of notifications when there's some new twitter or facebook post you really care about. Or you can write and jump quickly into a twitter/facebook app to see what is going on and jump back - because the device has been optimized for that use, unlike a traditional PC where application startup is more expensive and lengthy.
These are basic things that people do daily, the lack of a major component of today's web (Flash)
What? Where is is major use? It's widespread to be sure, but I question that it is such an important aspect of using the web today. I installed ClickToFlash on Safari about a year ago, and the ONLY flash I have had occasion to click on to see have been videos - all on sites that simply feed the h.264 the flash video player is already using under the covers, directly to the device. In the meantime I have also been spared a horde of annoying, battery sucking ads - and I never did believe in adblock because I like supporting sites. It's just that the number of Flash elements per page was getting to be absurd, with a ton of Flash overhead consuming the CPU.
Other than video use, the other major use of Flash is web based gaming - are you really arguing the iPhone/iPad platform is hurting for free casual games? There are so many games out now you could probably play free trial or ad supported versions of games for a year straight before you ran out of things to try. There is no Flash based game so compelling it would make people choose a platform, EXCEPT possibly for Farmville due to the large number of players who would like constant access to it. But there I imagine we'll see an iPhone app at some point.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you want to learn how to develop for the iPhone OS then you need to learn Objective-C.
I don't care if you have an existing codebase in C#. You are going to have to expose your code as generic webservices anyway since Mono for the iPhone does not support .NET remoting anyway. Once your "cloud" services are available as standard web services, they can be accessed by any language and it makes sense to learn the main native language of the iPhone OS platform.
Trying to use Mono Touch as a crutch smacks of laziness and fear of learning.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Oh come on, the name jokes are a manufactured "controversy". Just like the name iPod, iPad will stop sounding like something else, and become a word of its own. But even without this, there are so many other "pads" out there, that this is silly. For example, where was this controversy over the Fujitsu iPAD? Or the various other pads. ThinkPad? Newton MessagePad? MS Notepad? Or simply a pad of paper?
I'm not complaining about the jokes per se. They're kinda funny for a second, but they do wear thin. But what I'm responding to is that this is treated as some sort of serious issue. "OMG, people are making jokes!" How many iPood, iPaid, etc. jokes were there?
In the long run, the name is going to be just fine.
Here's an idea - What Steve should have done was release a tablet version of the MacBook Air (with the exact same software compatibility, OS, etc.) and call it the MacBook Slate or MacBook Touch. I would have bought one of those, and I'm often the first to question the sexual orientation of male Mac users.
And it would have sold worse than the MacBook Air. People have shown they don't want tablets that are just their desktop OS in tablet form. To be sure, there are people who buy them, but they are almost exclusively sold to geeks, artists, and some vertical markets. But as a mass media product, it takes something that's already cumbersome for most people, and making it even more so.
The brilliance of the iPhone OS is that it's designed specifically for multitouch. You're not just using your finger (or stylus) as a mouse, with handwriting recognition thrown in for good measure. Mac OS X no only already supports this, but you can already have your Mac modded into a Mac tablet (or buy one pre-modded). And they're not selling well enough to warrant a separate Apple SKU.
A tablet, in general I mean not just the iPad, has a better form factor for doing things like looking up information or doing small chunks of data entry.
I believe I mentioned that I have a tablet myself, and it has practically the same weight as the iPad. I can tell you, it is an awful fit for any computing "on the go". Too heavy to begin with, then iPad is hard to hold with one hand (my UMPC has grip space, thankfully). And it's just awkward all around to walk with the thing. I use my tablet for reading in bed, and I hold it with both hands, like a book. If you believe any data input is possible "on the go" - it just isn't so. You want to sit down, put the thing on the table (my UMPC has a flap on the back for that) and then you use the stylus (provided with mine) or the greasy fingers to work it.
I don't know how people are supposed to use the iPad. The keyboard demo shows that it should be standing nearly vertically (maybe at 75-80 degrees), but how do you do that without the keyboard stand? If you sit somewhere, like at a coffee shop, do you need to stack books behind it, or you must hold it in your hand all the time? If the latter, it sounds not very ergonomic. I understand that crew in ST:TNG are carrying tablets all the time, but rarely they are shown actually working on them; a tablet is mostly used to glance at. The computer in Captain's ready room is a desktop.
This is not something iPhone users are encountering because their device is small, and it doesn't need to be held for long (only while you dial a number, and do some other occasional computing.) Most of the time iPhone spends in the pocket, even if it plays music.
Then again, I'd much rather have one of those than a netbook. (I'd rather have a 17" laptop than both of them combined.)
As matter of fact, my main computer (that I type this on) is a 17" Fujitsu LifeBook. This was actually a nice purchase, previously I had only desktops. But now I know that there is a lot of value in a "desktop replacement" type of a notebook. I can carry it if necessary, but usually it sits on the desk and I use it as a desktop. It's plenty fast. The other computer, as I said, is the UMPC, and I have a PDA also. That's why I am so sure that the tablet idea is so limited and limiting - I have the thing for several years.
Funny thing is, the lowest-priced entry-level iPad would be more useful to me than a typical netbook. Heh.
Well, of course it's your decision, I only point out that the iPad will not have the selection of software that Windows/Linux users are familiar with, and it won't have a keyboard, and it won't have USB host or camera - something that netbooks usually have; even my Q1 tablet has all of the above, along with WiFi, Bluetooth, Ethernet, VGA output, *stereo* speakers and *stereo* microphones.
How does being able use C# or run windows sessions on the iPad enable it to displace a netbook? About the only place they overlap in functionality that they are both really good for is that they are both good for browsing the web and interacting with web apps that don't require lots of text input.
Beyond that their functionality diverges. The iPad is a slightly better ebook reader, is better for certain types of applications (particularly, though not exclusively, those involving fairly passive media consumption.) A netbook is better for anything that requires lots of text input -- I wouldn't want to take notes in a meeting or class on an iPad, or write a substantial document on one, both things that netbooks are good for. Netboooks are also substantially cheaper -- the least expensive iPad model is at the high end of netbook prices, the 11.6" Atom Z520 powered netbook I got a couple days ago that I'm typing this on was half the price of an iPad. (And it has a SIM card slot and 3G capablity, which I'd have to pay another half the price of the netbook on top of the minimum price of an iPad to get on iPad.) Its also got much more storage than the high-end iPad. And you don't need another whole computer with iTunes just to be able to use it. Its perfectly possible for someone who doesn't have heavy computing needs to have a netbook as their only computer -- an iPad can't fill that role as long as it is dependent on a "real" computer with iTunes.
Personally, I think the iPad is a good idea. However, I also think that while the app store is a useful evil on the iPhone, it's going to be death for the iPad.
Why? What apps are there really that are being blocked? Google Voice, SlingBox over 3G and...? Yawn. I know there's a list of interesting rejected apps, the losses are minimal, and while lamentable, a drop in the bucket compared with what software *is* available.
On the contrary, the App Store is one of the single most important factors in the success of the iPhone and now the iPad. Yes, the geek-types will lament the control imposed by the app store, and for myself, I'd prefer an official opt-in jailbreak mode, but in terms of mass appeal, the hinderance caused by the control is absolutely dwarfed by the benefit brought about by the single marketplace for discovering and downloading new apps and games.
Perhaps, but as a woman I can definitely tell you that all my women friends have agreed it's an unfortunate name because the first thing it makes us think of is feminine hygiene products.
Sure, today. Give it some time and iPad will just be another word, like Wii. People made the same arguments against the Wii. This too shall pass.
Not substantially. Sure, its about 60% of the weight of most 8.9"-11.6" netbooks I've seen -- all of which are around 2.5-2.75 lbs -- but that doesn't make much practical difference. Its esaier to use standing up, but no more so than tablet convertibles (most of which are now also styled as "netbooks") that are available at similar prices to the iPad.
Apple claims "up to 10 hours" active use, which is about the same as, or a little less than, I've seen claimed by most manufacturers of Atom N450 or N280 netbooks with 6-cell batteries; also, the same that is claimed by the manufacturer for the Atom Z520 powered netbook I'm using right now.
From standby, my netbook gets to web browsing pretty much instantly. If the iPad behaves like its cousins (e.g., iPhone), its quick to get to an app -- if you haven't actually turned it off. Which is analogous to standby on a netbook. Don't see a big advantage there.
Plus, netbooks -- in addition to being available much cheaper -- don't depend on the user having another computer available. A netbook can be the users only computer, an iPad can't.
Not to say anything negative about Apple here, but to those of us not in the gamer community, Wii still sounds asinine.
You couldn't have that any more backwards. The Wii is the one console that appeals to non-gamers.
People may still snicker at the name, I'm not saying that's going away. People still make "iPood" jokes. But the name "Wii" is no longer seen as a liability.
Eventually came to C++ and saw everyone using new and delete left right and center and I naturally assumed it would have trivial cost. Imagine my surprise when I actually ran the comparison benchmarks. With modern math coprocessors, a sqrt() is just three times mults, sin() is about 14, hyperbolic sine, logarithms are all about the same, inverse trig functions were around 25-30 times the cost of a mult. You know what? A simple push_back() or push_front() to an std::list is around 180 to 200 times as expensive as a mult. Throw in automatic garbage collection on top of this, you are looking at some serious performance degradation.
By the way, this is actually a very wrong way to go around this. Memory allocation in C and C++ (and other languages with memory allocation) is expensive precisely because they don't have compacting GCs - it means that allocation algorithm is that much more complex (and time-consuming), as it has to search for a fitting free block, and update the corresponding memory structures. And, as you keep the program running, and the heap gets fragmented more and more, allocation performance gets worse.
In comparison, a compacting generational GC, as used in Java or .NET, periodically defragments the heap so that unallocated memory is always on top. The result is that a single allocation from a GC heap is quite often literally a single pointer (to lower boundary of unallocated space) increment instruction.
Furthermore, depending on allocation patterns, deallocation with GC can be faster as well - e.g. if you call "new" in a loop in Java, all objects it'll allocate will be in a single contiguous block - and GC knows about that, and will be able to deallocate all objects in that block together (in a perfect case, with a single pointer decrement), if their lifetimes all end at the same time.
It does not improve a perfectly weighted japanese sushi knife to attach car steering wheel and fire extinguisher to it just in case you need to multi-task. Each item itself has all the controls and human interface it needs for it's task and only that.
That is a broken analogy. Each one of those devices has hard-set physical characteristics that inherently conflict with each other. The iPad can do multiple things, but not concurrently. Their UI is in no way hard set to preclude any of the functions people are asking about. A knife can never be a reasonable steering wheel ever, it isn't just that it can't cut and be a wheel at the same time.
In raskin's vision, the appliance would never need instructions. it would be as obvious how to use it as a hammer is.
And yet I see in hands on demos people trying various random gestures, and requiring the Apple rep to demonstrate what gesture was needed to perform a task. Notably, pinch to 'go back', how the hell is that intuitive?
Moreover you don't really want multi-taksing. You think you do but what you really mean is you want to beable to context swtich easily and for cases where apps need to interact that they do so in the way you want them to.
People don't complain about WebOS's realization of small form-factor multitasking, where each app is a full-screened app at pretty much all times. You seem to be attacking the multi-window model, which is a fair thing to question particularly in small form factors, but forbidding a program from executing in the background (doing non-interactive things like receiving instant messages or manipulating audio, etc) is asinine. I wonder what your post will be when Apple does finally cave to allowing third-party apps to background execute, it will happen I can guarantee.
For example, people insisted background processing was needed to handle incoming e-mail or other daemon tasks for apps. But the vast majority of those needs (though definitiely not all) are now served much better by the push notification deamon that apple implemented. See background processing was just one way to solve that problem that you were used. You did not need it and you are now better off without it.
Umm, you do realize that the daemon they implemented is explicitly a form of background processing? Apple *needs* it to deliver the things they need, and they allow themselves the privilege of background execution, they just deny it to third parties.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.