I don't know if it's true or not but there's certainly smoke. Perhaps aimed at taking the thorn out of the section 3.3.1 changes relating to third-party tools?
I actually understand Steve's point about cross-platform GUIs being the lowest common denominator (just look at Java Swing apps) but it's disappointing that change also hurt MonoTouch, which was a 1:1 iPhone API mapping and not an intermediate layer like the Flash compiler was/is.
Apple should have a certification program for such 1:1 mapping APIs. That would also take the thorn out of section 3.3.1 while allowing them to retain platform control.
>I actually understand Steve's point about cross-platform GUIs being the lowest common denominator
Sure. iTunes on Windows.
>I don't know if it's true or not but there's certainly smoke
All of the smoke emanating from a single nobody making a completely unsupported claim. It's actually a bit extraordinary how little is necessary when it comes to Apple.
I always wondered why iTunes for Windows is Carbon based. NeXT had a full OPENSTEP stack capable of running under NT (I did it) and that is what Cocoa is based on.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/16201/apple_makes_iphone_dev_...
I don't know if it's true or not but there's certainly smoke. Perhaps aimed at taking the thorn out of the section 3.3.1 changes relating to third-party tools?
I actually understand Steve's point about cross-platform GUIs being the lowest common denominator (just look at Java Swing apps) but it's disappointing that change also hurt MonoTouch, which was a 1:1 iPhone API mapping and not an intermediate layer like the Flash compiler was/is.