The current version of Stanza is compatible with the current version of iOS.
Even if it wasn't it's still true that it's better to get the option to upgrade the OS than not get the option, or to get it late, both of which are par for the course for Android users.
If it wasn't foreseen there wouldn't be an assert.
That's not true at all. In fact it's the opposite of the truth. Asserts go wherever there is an assumption of an invariant. They don't go where you can foresee that something might not be invariant.
If asserts were placed everywhere something unforeseen could happen then they would be, well, everywhere.
They can indeed be very frequent. It depends. If you want a methodology for it, look at programming by contract. That would limit you to putting asserts on pre-conditions and post-conditions of routines.
Adding a protective grill or designing the fan enclosure appropriately does nothing to reduce the the life of the machine, nor are there significant costs.
In this case it has caused Apple to stop selling the Mac Pro in Europe 3 months early. But that's not because they didn't have sufficient time. This standard was made years ago. More likely is that the current Mac Pro design lasted far longer than they planned.
You keep going back to the "well if people are injured, they're asking for it" line of the Victorian industrialists. Thankfully it's been a long time since that was an acceptable argument.
Indeed it was, but it gave me an opportunity to point out that asserts don't need to be ad-hoc, but there is an available methodology.
Sorry, no. Go back and re-read. I said aborting has places in release builds. Using assert for that is just a lazy man's solution. You're just doing if(...) then abort(), with some extra printout of where it aborted with no useful context as to why and how it got there. That's not going to help a developer understand what happened, especially since it's likely a context that occurred in production but not in testing.
Assertion macros. Plenty of platforms already have them defined. If not define them yourself. Then you can put in the assert anything you can put in a printf. You're advocating coding out an assert long hand each time. Foolish.
Ignoring the fact that one release manager later the compile flags might have an extra -DNDEBUG and your 'checks' vanished.
If you're not in charge of the build flags, then define your own release assert macro that doesn't get switched off by a flag. Not using asserts because someone else might break the build is irrational.
Clearly you believe that there should never be asserts in release builds. It's fine for you to believe that and for you to have that as a personal rule. However what you think is not the definition of good practice. There are plenty of scenarios where asserts in release builds are the right thing to do.
The ironic thing is that what you do think is OK for release builds is what's already in the assert macros on both of the platforms I've worked on in the last 10 years.
I think perhaps you just wanted an argument. Even if it made no sense.
Licenses are needed for sharing code for others to copy and use in their own projects.
Again, no they're not. People take my games and port it to other platforms. People take snippets of them to use in their own games. They do actually do that. Well one person's ported one of the games and several people have used snippets in their own games. And I'm perfectly happy with all those uses. It's what I intended. But I've never issued any license, neither blanket not individually.
This is a fact. It overrules your theory. You don't want it to be true, but it is.
Perhaps the logical error you are making is believing that only things sanctioned by the law happen in this world. Whereas actually rather a lot happens by decent people just behaving reasonably.
Your argument is irrational. Chainsaws are made as safe as they reasonably can be whilst still being a chainsaw. The safety regs are only doing the same for domestic appliances.
People were using your argument when there were children pulling tufts out of spinning machines, with several dying each year. It's an unthinking conservative attitude, that the way things are right now, or a few years in the past, is the best of all possible options. The progressive argument is that things can always get better, and there's no reason they shouldn't.
When Apple realizes the market they managed to get consumers interested in is taking off in a new direction and decide to offer the full OSX experience on their tablets, then that would apply.
You mean the direction Microsoft is taking with Windows 8? Hate to break it to you, but that's NOT the direction the market is going. Microsoft's been trying to put Desktop Windows on tablets for the last 2 decades. It's failed every time. The successful direction for tablets is scaling up mobile phones, not scaling down desktops.
Absolutely. That was the reason for one of it's niche successes. They were great for doing theatre sound effects. Cassette had not replaced reel to reel tape decks because the quality wasn't good enough. And because auto-stop was needed at the end of tracks - with reel to reel, you spliced in a section of transparent tape between tracks to make that happen.
But MD, with it's high quality, analogue recording, built in editing, and the autostop feature on some models made it a great replacement for those old reel to reel tape decks.
Why do we need app stores that make software 40%+ more expensive (assuming a 30% cut, to make $10 you must charge $14.29)? Can't people sell their own software like on Windows and OS X today?
The user experience of buying and installing software on iOS is far better than on Windows or OS X today.
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises! It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
It's like you don't understand why Apple is so popular. There's none so blind as those that won't see.
You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
Very often. For example utilities. Imagine if every cable telcom, water and gas supplier had to individually route up every street. The road would be constantly dug up.
Rail - in the UK rail developed by numerous individual companies running in different areas. Most with a different terminus in London. If it'd been a monopoly, they would have had a common terminus in London, and passengers wouldn't have been inconvenienced having to cross London to change between them.
In the long run the individual companies weren't financially viable and the state bought them to create the British Rail monopoly.
In more recent times (about 15 years ago), private sector competition believers split up rail again, and privatised it. Multiple companies again. Since then safety standards plummeted, and ticket prices have risen way over inflation.
Do Safeway and Target ban magazines from their rack for including mail-in subscription cards? Apple does the equivalent.
Because they've not considered it financially worth while doing. Magazines are not big money for them. If they stood to be significantly better off by doing so, they'd do it. Just as Walmart get's special censored versions of music CDs, because they consider that serves their interests better than selling the standard issues.
Don't imagine for one second that every public company isn't doing what it thinks will maximise their profit.
As I said i know a lot of folks who bought an iPhone NOT because of the tech or the quality but simply to be seen using an iPhone, it was the elitist nature of the branding that made it appeal to them NOT any kind of measurable quality difference.
Your anecdote is neither here nor there, especially when it doesn't accord with my own experience. And doesn't pass the sniff test.
Not a single person has told you that they'd bought an iPhone to be seen with it, nor because of elitist branding. It's easy to see that because even if it were true, nobody would say it. No one frames their choices in that way when telling another human being. Therefore it is 100% is is from your imagination, It's your own derogatory interpretation of someone else's motivation, when you don't know what their real motivation was.
TL;DR summary: You're ranting. There is no truth in what you are saying.
its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER
Of course they have a choice. They have the choice to not develop for the platform if they don't like it.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
As a user, I'm happy with that. It makes things easier, more consistent and safer to have a one-stop shop.
You do realise this is PR puff don't you? You didn't actually believe it did you? Hope you're not making any financial decisions. You'd be insane to start developing for Blackberry now.
How come? Microsoft could have developed its applications for OS/2 (and OS/2-PPC), and proved the DoJ wrong. It could have ported them to VMS, or NEXTSTEP or (w/ more difficulty) any of the Unixes out there.
Because this was 1997. And Microsoft didn't have to port Office to the Mac, because Office started out on the Mac (Mac 1989, Windows 1990). Any of those other platforms would have required a brand new port. Which would have taken years.
The first sentence is talking about how back when Apple was hurting and about to go out of business, Microsoft saved them by porting office to their platform.
You're confused. Microsoft created Microsoft Office for the Mac in 1989. More than a year before it appeared on WIndows. There was no porting of Office to the Mac. Rather it was ported from the Mac to Windows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office
You appear to have confused it with the settlement of their legal disputes in 1997, which included Microsoft promising to continue supporting Office:Mac. This was no altruistic gesture - this was part of a negotiated legal settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
The current version of Stanza is compatible with the current version of iOS.
Even if it wasn't it's still true that it's better to get the option to upgrade the OS than not get the option, or to get it late, both of which are par for the course for Android users.
But it's not factually incorrect. It's absolutely correct. That's why people who don't want it to be true get so upset about it.
And asking how old someone is in itself a childish argument.
If it wasn't foreseen there wouldn't be an assert.
That's not true at all. In fact it's the opposite of the truth. Asserts go wherever there is an assumption of an invariant. They don't go where you can foresee that something might not be invariant.
If asserts were placed everywhere something unforeseen could happen then they would be, well, everywhere.
They can indeed be very frequent. It depends. If you want a methodology for it, look at programming by contract. That would limit you to putting asserts on pre-conditions and post-conditions of routines.
Not everyone with a Windows PC has had their identities stolen and bank accounts empties.
Oh well, if there are still some that haven't been hit, that's OK then. Equally Afghanistan isn't dangerous, as not everyone who goes there dies.
Adding a protective grill or designing the fan enclosure appropriately does nothing to reduce the the life of the machine, nor are there significant costs.
In this case it has caused Apple to stop selling the Mac Pro in Europe 3 months early. But that's not because they didn't have sufficient time. This standard was made years ago. More likely is that the current Mac Pro design lasted far longer than they planned.
You keep going back to the "well if people are injured, they're asking for it" line of the Victorian industrialists. Thankfully it's been a long time since that was an acceptable argument.
Come back when you want to discuss like a grown-up.
Another way in which iOS is superior. Every user gets offered every OS update, within a day of it's release.
It's a mystery to me why people put up with Android's deficiencies.
I'll concede that mine was a poor example
Indeed it was, but it gave me an opportunity to point out that asserts don't need to be ad-hoc, but there is an available methodology.
Sorry, no. Go back and re-read. I said aborting has places in release builds. Using assert for that is just a lazy man's solution. You're just doing if(...) then abort(), with some extra printout of where it aborted with no useful context as to why and how it got there. That's not going to help a developer understand what happened, especially since it's likely a context that occurred in production but not in testing.
Assertion macros. Plenty of platforms already have them defined. If not define them yourself. Then you can put in the assert anything you can put in a printf. You're advocating coding out an assert long hand each time. Foolish.
Ignoring the fact that one release manager later the compile flags might have an extra -DNDEBUG and your 'checks' vanished.
If you're not in charge of the build flags, then define your own release assert macro that doesn't get switched off by a flag. Not using asserts because someone else might break the build is irrational.
Clearly you believe that there should never be asserts in release builds. It's fine for you to believe that and for you to have that as a personal rule. However what you think is not the definition of good practice. There are plenty of scenarios where asserts in release builds are the right thing to do.
The ironic thing is that what you do think is OK for release builds is what's already in the assert macros on both of the platforms I've worked on in the last 10 years.
I think perhaps you just wanted an argument. Even if it made no sense.
Licenses are needed for sharing code for others to copy and use in their own projects.
Again, no they're not. People take my games and port it to other platforms. People take snippets of them to use in their own games. They do actually do that. Well one person's ported one of the games and several people have used snippets in their own games. And I'm perfectly happy with all those uses. It's what I intended. But I've never issued any license, neither blanket not individually.
This is a fact. It overrules your theory. You don't want it to be true, but it is.
Perhaps the logical error you are making is believing that only things sanctioned by the law happen in this world. Whereas actually rather a lot happens by decent people just behaving reasonably.
I haven't seen those statements. But if anyone says that it's disabled any Java apps outside a browser, then they are wrong.
Your argument is irrational. Chainsaws are made as safe as they reasonably can be whilst still being a chainsaw. The safety regs are only doing the same for domestic appliances.
People were using your argument when there were children pulling tufts out of spinning machines, with several dying each year. It's an unthinking conservative attitude, that the way things are right now, or a few years in the past, is the best of all possible options. The progressive argument is that things can always get better, and there's no reason they shouldn't.
When Apple realizes the market they managed to get consumers interested in is taking off in a new direction and decide to offer the full OSX experience on their tablets, then that would apply.
You mean the direction Microsoft is taking with Windows 8? Hate to break it to you, but that's NOT the direction the market is going. Microsoft's been trying to put Desktop Windows on tablets for the last 2 decades. It's failed every time. The successful direction for tablets is scaling up mobile phones, not scaling down desktops.
Absolutely. That was the reason for one of it's niche successes. They were great for doing theatre sound effects. Cassette had not replaced reel to reel tape decks because the quality wasn't good enough. And because auto-stop was needed at the end of tracks - with reel to reel, you spliced in a section of transparent tape between tracks to make that happen.
But MD, with it's high quality, analogue recording, built in editing, and the autostop feature on some models made it a great replacement for those old reel to reel tape decks.
You seem to have forgotten your argument. You were saying it was unfair to developers.
All true. But it doesn't change the fact that this was all long before the events in 1997.
Why do we need app stores that make software 40%+ more expensive (assuming a 30% cut, to make $10 you must charge $14.29)? Can't people sell their own software like on Windows and OS X today?
The user experience of buying and installing software on iOS is far better than on Windows or OS X today.
So in your imaginary world where Microsoft's terms are negotiable - but only for the big vendors, not the small outfits and the independents.
You think that's morally better? That the big boys get the advantage over everyone else?
You have a warped sense of morality.
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises! It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
It's like you don't understand why Apple is so popular. There's none so blind as those that won't see.
You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
Very often. For example utilities. Imagine if every cable telcom, water and gas supplier had to individually route up every street. The road would be constantly dug up.
Rail - in the UK rail developed by numerous individual companies running in different areas. Most with a different terminus in London. If it'd been a monopoly, they would have had a common terminus in London, and passengers wouldn't have been inconvenienced having to cross London to change between them.
In the long run the individual companies weren't financially viable and the state bought them to create the British Rail monopoly.
In more recent times (about 15 years ago), private sector competition believers split up rail again, and privatised it. Multiple companies again. Since then safety standards plummeted, and ticket prices have risen way over inflation.
Fire service. Roads.
Do Safeway and Target ban magazines from their rack for including mail-in subscription cards? Apple does the equivalent.
Because they've not considered it financially worth while doing. Magazines are not big money for them. If they stood to be significantly better off by doing so, they'd do it. Just as Walmart get's special censored versions of music CDs, because they consider that serves their interests better than selling the standard issues.
Don't imagine for one second that every public company isn't doing what it thinks will maximise their profit.
As I said i know a lot of folks who bought an iPhone NOT because of the tech or the quality but simply to be seen using an iPhone, it was the elitist nature of the branding that made it appeal to them NOT any kind of measurable quality difference.
Your anecdote is neither here nor there, especially when it doesn't accord with my own experience. And doesn't pass the sniff test.
Not a single person has told you that they'd bought an iPhone to be seen with it, nor because of elitist branding. It's easy to see that because even if it were true, nobody would say it. No one frames their choices in that way when telling another human being. Therefore it is 100% is is from your imagination, It's your own derogatory interpretation of someone else's motivation, when you don't know what their real motivation was.
TL;DR summary: You're ranting. There is no truth in what you are saying.
its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER
Of course they have a choice. They have the choice to not develop for the platform if they don't like it.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
As a user, I'm happy with that. It makes things easier, more consistent and safer to have a one-stop shop.
Your links both refer to the very same report, by some outfit called "Vision Mobile". Who?
Well, guess who is one of their clients. (RIM) and who is not (Apple).
http://www.visionmobile.com/clients/
You do realise this is PR puff don't you? You didn't actually believe it did you? Hope you're not making any financial decisions. You'd be insane to start developing for Blackberry now.
How come? Microsoft could have developed its applications for OS/2 (and OS/2-PPC), and proved the DoJ wrong. It could have ported them to VMS, or NEXTSTEP or (w/ more difficulty) any of the Unixes out there.
Because this was 1997. And Microsoft didn't have to port Office to the Mac, because Office started out on the Mac (Mac 1989, Windows 1990). Any of those other platforms would have required a brand new port. Which would have taken years.
The first sentence is talking about how back when Apple was hurting and about to go out of business, Microsoft saved them by porting office to their platform.
You're confused. Microsoft created Microsoft Office for the Mac in 1989. More than a year before it appeared on WIndows. There was no porting of Office to the Mac. Rather it was ported from the Mac to Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office
You appear to have confused it with the settlement of their legal disputes in 1997, which included Microsoft promising to continue supporting Office:Mac. This was no altruistic gesture - this was part of a negotiated legal settlement.