I was saying that a BASIC is cheap to implement. In terms of the problems with Access and math, yes I've had serious problems too. Those BTW SQL Server as well. They weren't problems in BASIC they were problems in the underlying old versions of the C/C++ math libraries that had been compiled into those apps that the controller languages called. That is absolutely inexcusable on Microsoft's part but it is not a problem of BASIC.
____
So in terms of why BASIC, that was my #3 "3) It is well understood." People may not like BASICs but they know them. FORTH is an easy interpreter to write, RPL which is a FORTH derivative is one of the best controller languages ever. But... FORTH is much more poorly understood. It really is a huge hurdle, like losing 2/3rds of your possible users to have to do "2 3 +" over "2 + 3". And that same thing bites you with a LISP. I really thought Apple was on the right track with Dylon where they were creating a LISP with Algol syntax, an idea I think Perl, Python and Ruby proved correct for general programming.
If I had to pick something other than a BASIC, I'd use Javascript / XML because again it is well known.
Now if the language is a bigger deal, that is I expect people to write large applications in it... then the quality of the language matters much more than the (3) issues I listed above. I'd probably use a 3 tier system:
a) A macro controller language, something like a BASIC b) A full featured dynamic language capable of interacting with the APIs of the language. There a Ruby would be perfect. c) A static language capable of linking in engine components and writing alternate engines. There I'd want something like a F#, Haskell...
There are python IDEs, but in general there aren't good IDE for any of the dynamic languages. The reason is that IDE technology makes heavy use of static language features. It is an unsolved problem how to create a powerful dynamic IDE.
Because remember the idea was a scripting language for a new application. If I write ABC app, ABC doesn't have any hooks into python. I have to extend python and then embedded an entire python. I have to worry about all sorts of things like python security because it is now running inside my app, and all the features of this embedded libpython and how they interact with features of my API.
And all that to avoid whipping off a custom BASIC or LISP?
Only recently has it become possible to build an app that replicated built-in functionality, or that used any kind of scripting/code execution engine.
I agree, GP made his comments in the present tense. Apple has been slowly relaxing their rules, going from a position that is very heavy handed to slightly less so. As for "because they could" that's never been their reason. Their reasons have been because they wanted to achieve net benefits:
a) The avoidance of meta platforms, a problem that plagues most mobile phone applications. b) Security and safety, both for the end user and the carrier. c) Uniformity for developers.
As for being required to tolerate it, you aren't required to tolerate it. In general I think if you aren't comfortable taking direction from Cupertino, Apple would probably prefer you not be developing for their platform.
We know they aren't worthless since they've led to an applications market for iOS 7x the size of the Android, Blackberry, Windows and Nokia market combined. Regulated software resulted in the customer confidence, which resulted in a huge increase in sales. "There's an app for that" has become a slogan for iPhone which is a key component of their branding (and so ubiquitous that toddlers are assumed to know about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhkxDIr0y2U). Also no piracy plays a key role, in keeping sales volume high. And as a user one of the things I love about the phone is the apps. That is a classic example of what frequently happens when a government begins to regulate a market that is seen by consumers as desirable but unsafe, there is an explosion in business from the regulation, even though some types of products are disallowed.
Another key advantage is lack of worms and viruses. There have been huge problems on other phone platforms from viruses. An OS designed so that viruses are essentially impossible is a key advantage.
Also by banning reconfiguring of the device, the platform is uniform. The operating system is the same. Development quality and responsiveness goes way up.
I think those are real advantages, and those are things that sell the device. The real advantage for being able to change the system is for the carriers. I'm not sure that I see much net advantage to most end users in being able to run the kinds of software that come from a deregulated marketplace.
I agree with this comment that it is a collection of features with serious trade offs. Which was my point above, that it is a feature, "A highly profitable and regulated application marketplace" listed as a feature.
I can understand why someone wouldn't want to make the tradeoffs. But I don't think you can deny there are real advantages
I actively do not want a "regulated application marketplace". That iOS lives in that walled Garden (and what Apple choose to do with their power) is the primary reason why I am not remotely interested in iOS.
There are lots of features in lots of products I don't want. I like light bicycles, that doesn't mean that I don't think heavy suspensions for downhill racing is a vital feature of bikes I have no intention of buying.
It is disingenuous to suggest that is the only reason Apple reviews software under the criteria that it be 'safe.'
I agree it would be disingenuous, which is why I never said that was the only reason. It however is a reason that provides substantial value to end users.
If someone wants to make a "better something" that already exists, Apple will not allow it.
What are you talking about? There exist apps that compete with one another, and apps that replace Apple functionality. For example there are about a dozen browsers.
Of course they made something original, I'll agree the pieces were there, mostly. For example they just released Even the tying down is important, it has created a gigantic software market because applications are vetted for safety. Just to give some examples from 2007:
1) Point and call 2) Integrated visual voicemail (though I actually preferred the pay service on my Blackberry) 3) 2m camera 4) widescreen use 5) rich email on a phone 6) google maps integrated 7) proximity sensor.
Of course, there was an incredibly charismatic front man explaining to everyone that they need the next i-thing.
The incredibly charismatic front man also figured out how to take advantage of the mobile platform and offer services that no one else was offering. There hadn't really been a handheld revolution since Palm and BlackBerry.
Apple didn't win of charisma they won of the advantages of an integrated total experience.
1) Apple really and truly believes their interfaces were copied. I think if you look at interfaces before and after the iPhone, there can be little doubt that there was substantial copying of Apple's way of doing things, slide to unlock being a pretty clear example. For those that argue that all copying is the only way to do things consider how many interfaces were similar to Palm's stylus based interfaces.
2) Patents and restrictions are used to prevent products from being sold. Quite simply the laws are not functioning properly for technology.
3) The suits are going in both directions. For example the things Apple has been sued for by Samsung: Samsung and Nokia sued apple for using 3G Smiley faces input Regulators on wireless speeds Using Qualcomm chips (though this is dropped).
I understand that if they incompatible they can't be conjoined. However, what you are missing is the obvious license problem.
Think about your argument
That there exists this "kernel license" that no one actually issues and no one is actually responsible for and no one actually holds. We know that all parts of the kernel were released under this, even though no entity has the authority to say that. We can ignore the developers who believe their code was released under GPLv2 and don't think the Linux kernel has a no upgrade clause because of the above "kernel license". We can ignore all the laws regarding to forms of contracts, because the kernel license is so explicit so well understood and so binding.
I don't fail to understand your argument, I just think it is ridiculous. In the real world licenses are issues by legal contracting entities. There is no such thing as a licenser who is not a contracting entity. If the kernel collectively does not have a contracting entity then the kernel collectively does not have a license at all. Rather it is a collection of individually licenses parts with highly questionable standing about many of them. In cases where the licenses are ambiguous because multiple contracting entities conflict, the form of the contract is binding. The form of the GPL is the FSF's commentary. That is the evidence is mixed, hence no one can find a preponderance of evidence as to what specific clauses are binding on code from the kernel, with regard to the to the upgrade clause. In the case of ambiguity licenses default to the more permissive clause.
What makes you think they have plenty of spectrum? All the carriers and the FCC agree they are hugely short to meet the demands of the American public.
Android has terrible legacy support relative to iPhone. There are a few models which have gotten some updates and many that have not. The very first phone the G1 never got an update, the Garmin has always been well behind, as has the Cliq. And of course I was mentioning app problems.
Sure there are cheap phones like the Backflip that have always been 2+ versions behind but there are problems at the higher end too.
I don't know about that. The mid 1990s was the time period of the Quadras and the Powerbook.
-- By 1996 you had switched over to power, putting you well ahead of the x86s in terms of CPU. And before that the 68040s were better than 486s. -- You had SCSI and not the cheap IDE/ISA drives that were common in PCs.
Those were much better machines. Prices were a bit high. I certainly thought you were paying way too much.
Essentially the PC world was catching up. But 2% market share happened in the mid 2000s. It took a long time for OSX to turn the company around.
Yeah I've heard about that. And I used to talk about 1 Wilshire which would take most of the internet in LA, Ventura County, Orange County, San Diego and Las Vegas if it went out. That was about 16 years ago. It is likely more redundant now. I think we have a large decentralized mesh up the last mile. In most endpoints you can now get most of :
a) Cable connection b) Fios c) T1 over copper d) Cell phone 3G/4G e) DS3
which shows the degree of mesh. In terms of last mile most people have broadcast wireless, and we could setup meshes of high speed wireless connections if we had to connecting to those various national systems if people started wanting to mesh more locally. Right now people don't perceive the need because there isn't much censorship.
The Constitution doesn't specify mechanisms for delegation of scope of delegation. The constitution is silent on the issue of what can or can't be delegated.
As far as the response to 9/11 congress passed a treaty and we acted under Nato treaty article 5. We can take military action based upon treaties.
Huh? What country do you think would want to get into an armed conflict with the United States? There are many countries that want to be in a state of low level conflict but few want to actually be at war. We have a long tradition of making war, win or lose just miserably expensive for the opponents.
No one is going to attack the USA through violent action and if they were willing to, the Geneva Convention isn't going to matter one way or another.
Huh? The Internet was an interconnected collection of arpnets. It was meant to be a partisan system for low security information to pass between the US military and their contractors.
Slashdot Mirror
I was saying that a BASIC is cheap to implement. In terms of the problems with Access and math, yes I've had serious problems too. Those BTW SQL Server as well. They weren't problems in BASIC they were problems in the underlying old versions of the C/C++ math libraries that had been compiled into those apps that the controller languages called. That is absolutely inexcusable on Microsoft's part but it is not a problem of BASIC.
____
So in terms of why BASIC, that was my #3 "3) It is well understood." People may not like BASICs but they know them. FORTH is an easy interpreter to write, RPL which is a FORTH derivative is one of the best controller languages ever. But... FORTH is much more poorly understood. It really is a huge hurdle, like losing 2/3rds of your possible users to have to do "2 3 +" over "2 + 3". And that same thing bites you with a LISP. I really thought Apple was on the right track with Dylon where they were creating a LISP with Algol syntax, an idea I think Perl, Python and Ruby proved correct for general programming.
If I had to pick something other than a BASIC, I'd use Javascript / XML because again it is well known.
Now if the language is a bigger deal, that is I expect people to write large applications in it... then the quality of the language matters much more than the (3) issues I listed above. I'd probably use a 3 tier system:
a) A macro controller language, something like a BASIC
b) A full featured dynamic language capable of interacting with the APIs of the language. There a Ruby would be perfect.
c) A static language capable of linking in engine components and writing alternate engines. There I'd want something like a F#, Haskell...
There are python IDEs, but in general there aren't good IDE for any of the dynamic languages. The reason is that IDE technology makes heavy use of static language features. It is an unsolved problem how to create a powerful dynamic IDE.
Because remember the idea was a scripting language for a new application. If I write ABC app, ABC doesn't have any hooks into python. I have to extend python and then embedded an entire python. I have to worry about all sorts of things like python security because it is now running inside my app, and all the features of this embedded libpython and how they interact with features of my API.
And all that to avoid whipping off a custom BASIC or LISP?
BASICS are good to write because
1) Syntax is well defined and thus lexiconical interpretation is easy.
2) There is an extremely low number of keywords
3) It is well understood.
LISPs are by far the easiest interpreters to write.
Python and Ruby are orders of magnitude more difficult to write interpreters for. Multiple man years instead of man days.
I agree, GP made his comments in the present tense. Apple has been slowly relaxing their rules, going from a position that is very heavy handed to slightly less so. As for "because they could" that's never been their reason. Their reasons have been because they wanted to achieve net benefits:
a) The avoidance of meta platforms, a problem that plagues most mobile phone applications.
b) Security and safety, both for the end user and the carrier.
c) Uniformity for developers.
As for being required to tolerate it, you aren't required to tolerate it. In general I think if you aren't comfortable taking direction from Cupertino, Apple would probably prefer you not be developing for their platform.
I went through your comments I don't see a top 5 list.
We know they aren't worthless since they've led to an applications market for iOS 7x the size of the Android, Blackberry, Windows and Nokia market combined. Regulated software resulted in the customer confidence, which resulted in a huge increase in sales. "There's an app for that" has become a slogan for iPhone which is a key component of their branding (and so ubiquitous that toddlers are assumed to know about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhkxDIr0y2U). Also no piracy plays a key role, in keeping sales volume high. And as a user one of the things I love about the phone is the apps. That is a classic example of what frequently happens when a government begins to regulate a market that is seen by consumers as desirable but unsafe, there is an explosion in business from the regulation, even though some types of products are disallowed.
Another key advantage is lack of worms and viruses. There have been huge problems on other phone platforms from viruses. An OS designed so that viruses are essentially impossible is a key advantage.
Also by banning reconfiguring of the device, the platform is uniform. The operating system is the same. Development quality and responsiveness goes way up.
I think those are real advantages, and those are things that sell the device. The real advantage for being able to change the system is for the carriers. I'm not sure that I see much net advantage to most end users in being able to run the kinds of software that come from a deregulated marketplace.
I agree with this comment that it is a collection of features with serious trade offs. Which was my point above, that it is a feature, "A highly profitable and regulated application marketplace" listed as a feature.
I can understand why someone wouldn't want to make the tradeoffs. But I don't think you can deny there are real advantages
There are lots of features in lots of products I don't want. I like light bicycles, that doesn't mean that I don't think heavy suspensions for downhill racing is a vital feature of bikes I have no intention of buying.
A highly profitable and regulated application marketplace.
I agree it would be disingenuous, which is why I never said that was the only reason. It however is a reason that provides substantial value to end users.
What are you talking about? There exist apps that compete with one another, and apps that replace Apple functionality. For example there are about a dozen browsers.
What does webOS have that is revolutionary? I've heard good things about it but what goes that far.
I hope someone picks it up.
Of course they made something original, I'll agree the pieces were there, mostly. For example they just released Even the tying down is important, it has created a gigantic software market because applications are vetted for safety. Just to give some examples from 2007:
1) Point and call
2) Integrated visual voicemail (though I actually preferred the pay service on my Blackberry)
3) 2m camera
4) widescreen use
5) rich email on a phone
6) google maps integrated
7) proximity sensor.
The incredibly charismatic front man also figured out how to take advantage of the mobile platform and offer services that no one else was offering. There hadn't really been a handheld revolution since Palm and BlackBerry.
Apple didn't win of charisma they won of the advantages of an integrated total experience.
I think there are 3 things going on.
1) Apple really and truly believes their interfaces were copied. I think if you look at interfaces before and after the iPhone, there can be little doubt that there was substantial copying of Apple's way of doing things, slide to unlock being a pretty clear example. For those that argue that all copying is the only way to do things consider how many interfaces were similar to Palm's stylus based interfaces.
2) Patents and restrictions are used to prevent products from being sold. Quite simply the laws are not functioning properly for technology.
3) The suits are going in both directions. For example the things Apple has been sued for by Samsung:
Samsung and Nokia sued apple for using 3G
Smiley faces input
Regulators on wireless speeds
Using Qualcomm chips (though this is dropped).
I understand that if they incompatible they can't be conjoined. However, what you are missing is the obvious license problem.
Think about your argument
That there exists this "kernel license" that no one actually issues and no one is actually responsible for and no one actually holds. We know that all parts of the kernel were released under this, even though no entity has the authority to say that. We can ignore the developers who believe their code was released under GPLv2 and don't think the Linux kernel has a no upgrade clause because of the above "kernel license". We can ignore all the laws regarding to forms of contracts, because the kernel license is so explicit so well understood and so binding.
I don't fail to understand your argument, I just think it is ridiculous. In the real world licenses are issues by legal contracting entities. There is no such thing as a licenser who is not a contracting entity. If the kernel collectively does not have a contracting entity then the kernel collectively does not have a license at all. Rather it is a collection of individually licenses parts with highly questionable standing about many of them. In cases where the licenses are ambiguous because multiple contracting entities conflict, the form of the contract is binding. The form of the GPL is the FSF's commentary. That is the evidence is mixed, hence no one can find a preponderance of evidence as to what specific clauses are binding on code from the kernel, with regard to the to the upgrade clause. In the case of ambiguity licenses default to the more permissive clause.
What makes you think they have plenty of spectrum? All the carriers and the FCC agree they are hugely short to meet the demands of the American public.
Android has terrible legacy support relative to iPhone. There are a few models which have gotten some updates and many that have not. The very first phone the G1 never got an update, the Garmin has always been well behind, as has the Cliq. And of course I was mentioning app problems.
Sure there are cheap phones like the Backflip that have always been 2+ versions behind but there are problems at the higher end too.
I don't know about that. The mid 1990s was the time period of the Quadras and the Powerbook.
-- By 1996 you had switched over to power, putting you well ahead of the x86s in terms of CPU. And before that the 68040s were better than 486s.
-- You had SCSI and not the cheap IDE/ISA drives that were common in PCs.
Those were much better machines. Prices were a bit high. I certainly thought you were paying way too much.
Essentially the PC world was catching up. But 2% market share happened in the mid 2000s. It took a long time for OSX to turn the company around.
Yeah I've heard about that. And I used to talk about 1 Wilshire which would take most of the internet in LA, Ventura County, Orange County, San Diego and Las Vegas if it went out. That was about 16 years ago. It is likely more redundant now. I think we have a large decentralized mesh up the last mile. In most endpoints you can now get most of :
a) Cable connection
b) Fios
c) T1 over copper
d) Cell phone 3G/4G
e) DS3
which shows the degree of mesh. In terms of last mile most people have broadcast wireless, and we could setup meshes of high speed wireless connections if we had to connecting to those various national systems if people started wanting to mesh more locally. Right now people don't perceive the need because there isn't much censorship.
The Constitution doesn't specify mechanisms for delegation of scope of delegation. The constitution is silent on the issue of what can or can't be delegated.
As far as the response to 9/11 congress passed a treaty and we acted under Nato treaty article 5. We can take military action based upon treaties.
Huh? What country do you think would want to get into an armed conflict with the United States? There are many countries that want to be in a state of low level conflict but few want to actually be at war. We have a long tradition of making war, win or lose just miserably expensive for the opponents.
No one is going to attack the USA through violent action and if they were willing to, the Geneva Convention isn't going to matter one way or another.
Torrent and other P2P. All sorts of web 2.0 technologies. Fast connections. Very little port blocking.
I think the internet is at least as open as it was 20 years ago.
Huh? The Internet was an interconnected collection of arpnets. It was meant to be a partisan system for low security information to pass between the US military and their contractors.
The internet has been demilitarized with time.
Or instead of hacking your device, you can just go legit...
Get the Apple SDK, and install whatever you want on your phone with no headaches or hassles.