So the file extension is actually a good way to know what type of file it is.
No, it's brain dead. The filename is a name. The filetype should be another piece of metadata. (and not just an executable flag either - a complete file type.)
If the file type needs to be seen by the user, then that's a UI design issue, not a reason to have brain dead mixed purpose metadata fields.
Good operating systems don't use part of the filename to store the file type. It's 2015. File types ought to be indicated by mimetypes or some other such metadata unconnected to the name.
Sadly we're limited by everyone copying the lowest common denominator.
With Apple switching to swift, you'll be learning an orphan language. Best bet is to learn c, then c++. This way you get the basics first.
If someone was planning on learning a language as a stepping stone to Swift, c or c++ would be a bad choice, leading to developing bad habits that will cause frustration when moving to Swift. As I understand it they'd be best learning a functional language, after which they'll approach problems in a way which fits very well with Swift's world view.
I can't recommend the particular functional language, as I DID come up the procedural/oo path.
However, if you think you're going to make money developing for OSX starting from zero, seriously, what universe do you think you're in?
As an indie, perhaps. But salaries are good in OSX/iOS programming.
Not quite. Although you can compile C++ as part of an OSX or iOS project, there's no point - other than using someone else's library. The parts of projects that aren't Obj-C tend to be C.
Why?
You're dropping out of Obj-C for cross platform compatibility, because you're dealing with a low level Apple API, or because you want maximum speed for some part of the code. All these things are usually best served by C. If you're wanting objects at the expense of speed, then you wouldn't stray from Obj-C in the first place.
Great anecdote. Right here, right now, today, OSM believes my location is a country that's at the opposite side of the world from the one I actually am in.
None of the commercial services ever get this wrong for me these days. They all pinpoint me within a block.
That means OSM has fallen at the first hurdle. If it doesn't get the continent, let alone the country right, it won't recognise my locations when I type them in to the router.
It's done in specific circumstances, such as games, where there's a lot of logic that is platform independent. But for most mobile apps other than games, it's more talked about than actually done. For exactly the reason the OP suggests.
I'm glad you did. Because you've just illustrated why you have no appreciation of the uselessness of GPLed software to most people. You are neither a software developer, nor do you make much use of mainstream application categories. You are in a tiny niche that lies on the brink of commercial software having to be extremely expensive or not being economically feasible because there are so few users.
As it happens my brother is also in that tiny niche, and has been for 3 decades. And I know from conversations I've had with him that it's a mixed bag. Sometimes the best (or only) software for the task is open source, sometimes it's commercial but free of charge from chip companies, and sometimes it's very expensive commercial stuff.
But as I say it's pretty irrelevant to mainstream software developers, let alone to the majority of application categories.
Obviously they are not Android is an Operating system and LLVM is a set of compiler tools. The point of analogies is to compare similar things that are different. Analogies comparing the same thing really don't work. For example, if doesn't make sense to draw an analogy between the digestive system of a Guernsey cow and the digestive system of a Guernsey cow does it?
Well that was pointless verbiage, when the point was they are not the same in the direction you are trying to make an argument.
A student whose name is Chris Lattner. Who has been the project maintainer his whole life. Who went to work for Apple to bring the code up to snuff and created a team there to maintain it.
Companies employing people to continue their open source projects is supposed to be a good thing to the "open source community" remember? That doesn't change just because you dislike the company. And it certainly doesn't mean Apple own the project, and more than Red Hat owns Linux. Either now when they employ lots of people working on Linux, or back when they employed Linus Torvalds.
and whose core was open sourced. It's called AOSP. and like LLVM anyone can contribute to it.
Wrong. Google drops their version of AOSP when they release a new version of Android. You can only change it after that. (and add all the bits that are needed to make it actually work.) It's a one way flow. You can't put your changes back into Android. That's why CyanogenMod exists.
Except now you're going to claim that GPL'd apps are "worse" on averege than proprietary ones without a jot of evidence.
You'd have to be very lacking in experience of software to not realise it. Pick pretty much any category of app and the best app is a commercial one for OSX or Windows.
GCC is low quality because it's a virtually unmaintainable mess of #ifdefs. It's being maintained by old hands because no-one new has a chance.
LLVM has a decent modular architecture. It's in a different league to crappy old GCC.
Sure GCC has accumulated more languages and targets over the years. But that's features, not quality. It's just a matter of time before LLVM has the non-obsoltete ones all covered.
But that is clearly contra-productive for the whole community,
What community? Virtually no one wants to be part of RMS's community. They just want to use software. That's what the GPL is dying.
and also for the poor users of your software.
What did the users do to deserve access to my source code by right?
it benefits only to you.
Bullshit. 99.999% of people only ever want executables. They wouldn't know what to do with source if you gift-wrapped it for them. The only people who MIGHT want my source are other developers. And I choose if they get it not RMS.
What you're actually saying is that the GPL doesn't allow you to take some code someone else wrote, modify it, then distribute it and stop people seeing it.
No one should have any right to see the modifications and additions I make. It's that unreasonable virality, that is killing GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
So the file extension is actually a good way to know what type of file it is.
No, it's brain dead. The filename is a name. The filetype should be another piece of metadata. (and not just an executable flag either - a complete file type.)
If the file type needs to be seen by the user, then that's a UI design issue, not a reason to have brain dead mixed purpose metadata fields.
Good operating systems don't use part of the filename to store the file type. It's 2015. File types ought to be indicated by mimetypes or some other such metadata unconnected to the name.
Sadly we're limited by everyone copying the lowest common denominator.
With Apple switching to swift, you'll be learning an orphan language. Best bet is to learn c, then c++. This way you get the basics first.
If someone was planning on learning a language as a stepping stone to Swift, c or c++ would be a bad choice, leading to developing bad habits that will cause frustration when moving to Swift. As I understand it they'd be best learning a functional language, after which they'll approach problems in a way which fits very well with Swift's world view.
I can't recommend the particular functional language, as I DID come up the procedural/oo path.
However, if you think you're going to make money developing for OSX starting from zero, seriously, what universe do you think you're in?
As an indie, perhaps. But salaries are good in OSX/iOS programming.
C++ is also important when targeting Apple.
Not quite. Although you can compile C++ as part of an OSX or iOS project, there's no point - other than using someone else's library. The parts of projects that aren't Obj-C tend to be C.
Why?
You're dropping out of Obj-C for cross platform compatibility, because you're dealing with a low level Apple API, or because you want maximum speed for some part of the code. All these things are usually best served by C. If you're wanting objects at the expense of speed, then you wouldn't stray from Obj-C in the first place.
I try to keep all the Objective-C crap isolated in separate files whenever possible.
As we established in previous stories, you don't code in Objective-C at all. You claim experience you don't have.
In Obj-C:
NSArray *items = [string componentsSeperatedByString:@","];
Division is a single concept, whether it's ints or it's reals and complex numbers.
Bit shifting and stream i/o are completely different concepts.
when I became a man, I put away childish things.
You're not a geek then.
The fact that Apple made them an offer they didn't want to refuse hardly proves A123 are awful.
They might be. But this isn't evidence of that.
Android's tend to have removable batteries. iPhones don't.
Android's have this malware. iPhones don't.
No, it was still a moronic point.
Huh? OSM doesn't know anything about your location. If you're talking about the web page (OSM is a database, the web site is just one view on it)
By that moronic line of thought, the story's claim that OSM now supports routing is also wrong.
Great anecdote. Right here, right now, today, OSM believes my location is a country that's at the opposite side of the world from the one I actually am in.
None of the commercial services ever get this wrong for me these days. They all pinpoint me within a block.
That means OSM has fallen at the first hurdle. If it doesn't get the continent, let alone the country right, it won't recognise my locations when I type them in to the router.
Maybe I'll check back again in a few more years.
Sure other stuff needs to be attached. But this isn't an issue. Bone replacement is a routine everyday operation.
It's done in specific circumstances, such as games, where there's a lot of logic that is platform independent. But for most mobile apps other than games, it's more talked about than actually done. For exactly the reason the OP suggests.
I'm going to pick my line of work.
I'm glad you did. Because you've just illustrated why you have no appreciation of the uselessness of GPLed software to most people. You are neither a software developer, nor do you make much use of mainstream application categories. You are in a tiny niche that lies on the brink of commercial software having to be extremely expensive or not being economically feasible because there are so few users.
As it happens my brother is also in that tiny niche, and has been for 3 decades. And I know from conversations I've had with him that it's a mixed bag. Sometimes the best (or only) software for the task is open source, sometimes it's commercial but free of charge from chip companies, and sometimes it's very expensive commercial stuff.
But as I say it's pretty irrelevant to mainstream software developers, let alone to the majority of application categories.
Obviously they are not Android is an Operating system and LLVM is a set of compiler tools. The point of analogies is to compare similar things that are different. Analogies comparing the same thing really don't work. For example, if doesn't make sense to draw an analogy between the digestive system of a Guernsey cow and the digestive system of a Guernsey cow does it?
Well that was pointless verbiage, when the point was they are not the same in the direction you are trying to make an argument.
A student whose name is Chris Lattner. Who has been the project maintainer his whole life. Who went to work for Apple to bring the code up to snuff and created a team there to maintain it.
Companies employing people to continue their open source projects is supposed to be a good thing to the "open source community" remember? That doesn't change just because you dislike the company. And it certainly doesn't mean Apple own the project, and more than Red Hat owns Linux. Either now when they employ lots of people working on Linux, or back when they employed Linus Torvalds.
and whose core was open sourced. It's called AOSP. and like LLVM anyone can contribute to it.
Wrong. Google drops their version of AOSP when they release a new version of Android. You can only change it after that. (and add all the bits that are needed to make it actually work.) It's a one way flow. You can't put your changes back into Android. That's why CyanogenMod exists.
Ah, so GCC is low quality because reasons.
Well if you want to deny reasons, you're clearly not open to debate.
LLVM may very well be cleaner, but that doesn't make GCC low quality.
I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. Quality is not equal to number of features. If it were, Microsoft would win with most of their apps.
I think, I have found the root cause of your understanding of the issue: you're an idiot.
And with that you've just shown you know you lost the argument.
And people are exercising that right in droves. That's why GPL is losing out to BSD and other less viral licenses.
A libertarian and his money...
Except now you're going to claim that GPL'd apps are "worse" on averege than proprietary ones without a jot of evidence.
You'd have to be very lacking in experience of software to not realise it. Pick pretty much any category of app and the best app is a commercial one for OSX or Windows.
GCC is low quality because it's a virtually unmaintainable mess of #ifdefs. It's being maintained by old hands because no-one new has a chance.
LLVM has a decent modular architecture. It's in a different league to crappy old GCC.
Sure GCC has accumulated more languages and targets over the years. But that's features, not quality. It's just a matter of time before LLVM has the non-obsoltete ones all covered.
But that is clearly contra-productive for the whole community,
What community? Virtually no one wants to be part of RMS's community. They just want to use software. That's what the GPL is dying.
and also for the poor users of your software.
What did the users do to deserve access to my source code by right?
it benefits only to you.
Bullshit. 99.999% of people only ever want executables. They wouldn't know what to do with source if you gift-wrapped it for them. The only people who MIGHT want my source are other developers. And I choose if they get it not RMS.
What you're actually saying is that the GPL doesn't allow you to take some code someone else wrote, modify it, then distribute it and stop people seeing it.
No one should have any right to see the modifications and additions I make. It's that unreasonable virality, that is killing GPL.
You either don't know LLVM or you don't know Android. They are not the same.
LLVM was a postgrad student project, and remains an open project, that anyone can contribute to http://llvm.org./
Android was a commercial product bought be Google, and they occasionally offer source copies of parts of the project.