On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:09:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 19:46:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Not at all, it makes things easier certainly, but there's a
reason why mobile devs always test on the actual devices,
because there are real differences.
Mostly with low level stuff in my experience.
And what experience would that be? I've admitted I've never
developed for Apple platforms, but my understanding is that even
leaving aside the completely different touch-first UI, there are
significant differences. I wonder what Mac apps you simply
ported the UI over to iPhone and they just worked.
Now, they're not going to dump 10-15% of sales because the
Mac's a fading business, they'll just keep milking it till it
doesn't make any sense, as I already said.
Heh, it would be very bad management to take focus off Macs. I
doubt Jobs would have allowed that to happen, but as I said, I
don't really trust the current management at Apple. So who
knows what they will do?
I just said they're not going to dump it, so I don't know why
you're going on about that. If you mean their current lessened
investment is not a good idea, it's because the old desktop OS
doesn't matter as much, which is the whole point of this thread.
You are thinking too much short term here IMHO. The mobile
sector is rather volatile.
I have no idea what this refers to: you have a bad habit of
adding asides without any explation or non sequiturs, so that
we're left stumped as to what you're talking about.
Maybe I'm just very adaptable, but I've increasingly come to
the conclusion that smaller works fine, especially with the
extremely high ppi on mobile displays these days.
Small tablets are ok, for reading, but programming really
requires more screen space. Although I guess one external + the
builtin one is ok too.
Some will use the small tablet screen like me, many a 11-13"
laptop shell like Sentio, and a few a dock like DeX to connect
the monitor of their choice.
I guess it would be possible to create a docking station for
phones that was able to transfer heat away from the device so
that you could run at higher speed when docked, but then the
phone calls and you have to unplug it or use a headset…
I've been using a tablet to compile code for years now, never had
a problem with heat. The power budget on these mobile chips is
already limited, as they don't have a fan, such that you don't
have to worry about that. That limits your performance of
course, but the point is that most don't compile code or do
anything close, so it doesn't matter for them.
As for phone calls, I noted earlier in this thread that some
already use cheap bluetooth handsets with their phablet, not a
headset.
multi-window UIs built in, which as I said before is starting
to happen with Android 7.0 Nougat.
I should take a closer look on modern Android… Sounds
interesting.
I've linked it a handful of times in this forum, including the
other mobile thread I originally linked:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/android-7-0-nougat-review-do-more-on-your-gigantic-smartphone/3/#h2
Samsung appears to use it for their DeX dock:
https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-dex-pc-replacement-778222/
happened. MS, Nokia, and others linked in this thread clearly
thought as you did about mobile, yet they completely missed
the boat. Clearly they misjudged the scale, scope, and timing
of that coming mobile tidal wave.
Yes, but as I said, not many players could have countered this.
Microsoft certainly if they had bought up Nokia right away.
Nokia alone… probably not. HP or Sony? On a lucky day…
I see, so your claim is that MS, Nokia, HP, Sony, all much larger
companies than Apple or google at the time, could not have
countered them even on a lucky day. I wonder why this is, as
they certainly had more money, you don't believe they're that
bright? :)
Yes, Apple made a big push, _at the right time_, while
everybody else didn't. Google and Samsung followed fast, to
their credit, while everybody else fell to the wayside.
Well, but Android units did get a bad reputation in beginning.
Again, I have no idea what this refers to or what point you're
trying to make here.
A good example for what? They started a mobile OS from
nothing and grew it to two billion-plus users today, which you
implied only those with a "starting point" could do.
The Android makers had a real problem with quality and making a
profit. Samsung managed to make a profit, but many others
struggled. And it took a long time before Android's reputation
caught up with iOS. Most businesses would not have been willing
to make that software investment and sustain it until the OS
platform would reach a competitive level.
Yet the businesses that did build Android, ie google, HTC, and so
on, were much smaller than the corporate behemoths like HP or
Sony that you claimed above couldn't do it. Your claims about
who could or couldn't do it make absolutely no sense.
So I don't think many could have followed Apple there. Apple
recycled a lot of their prior work and experiences. Microsoft
could have, sure, and I am sure they regret getting in late.
But, they were late with embracing Internet too, so they have
always followed their own mindset… and only reluctantly follow
new trends.
As I've linked earlier, MS had already got in early, around 2001
with their Tablet PC platform and 2003 with Windows Mobile:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile
Their problem was likely that they got in too early and got
discouraged, not that they were "getting in late."
But frankly, I don't think many giants would start with a GPL
code base like Linux.
As I pointed out above, that may be changing with their
developing a non-GPL alternative called Fuchsia now. Maybe they
just grabbed linux because it was already built and they were in
a hurry, and now plan to remedy that mistake.
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:49:36 UTC, Jerry wrote:
Well a tablet isn't really for development. Even a cheap laptop
would be better for development. You can't really do much of
anything with that little space. I don't think the focus should
be people with niche development hardware like tablets. If you
do enough CTFE the RAM usage of DMD shoots through the roof and
you'd end up not having enough RAM to compile anyways. Let
alone if you have enough ram but still use the 32-bit version
of DMD and hit that limit.
This is a big problem for MS and Windows, as I've been developing
D just fine on an Android tablet with 16 GB storage. You can do
the same by installing the Termux app for Android and running a
single command:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.termux&hl=en
https://wiki.dlang.org/Build_D_for_Android#Native_compilation_2
If you require heavy-duty hardware to develop software, there go
all the entry-level devs who cannot afford the more expensive
stuff and will get going on Android instead. This isn't going to
bite Windows tomorrow or even next year, but it will get them
eventually.
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:04:24 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Monday, 6 November 2017 at 08:33:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
The vast majority of users would be covered by 5-10 GBs of
available storage, which is why the lowest tier of even the
luxury iPhone was 16 GBs until last year. Every time I talk
to normal people, ie non-techies unlike us, and ask them how
much storage they have in their device, whether smartphone,
tablet, or laptop, they have no idea. If I look in the
device, I inevitably find they're only using something like
3-5 GBs max, out of the 20-100+ GBs they have available.
You are making an assumption that people want as much storage
for a combo phone/PC as they do for only a phone. You need to
also check how much storage they are using on their PCs.
You need to read what I actually wrote, I was talking about
laptops too. I don't go to people's homes and check their
desktops, but their laptops fall under the same low-storage
umbrella, and laptops are 80% of PCs sold these days.
I never made any previous claim about what IDEs are being
used. The only time I previously mentioned an IDE was with
regard to RemObjects and Embarcadero offering
cross-compilation to Android/iOS with their products.
"There is a case to be made for supporting Android/iOS
cross-compilation. But it doesn't have to come at the expense
of Windows 64-bit integration. Not sure they even involve the
same skillsets. Embarcadero and Remobjects both now support
Android/iOS development from their Windows (and macOS in the
case of Remobjects) IDEs."
That was to highlight that those two compiler companies have
seen fit to also cross-compile to mobile - they saw an
importance to mobile development. It wasn't about what IDEs
are best for mobile or even what IDEs are being used for
mobile.
If you look back to the first mention of IDES, it was your
statement, "Good luck selling game developers on using D to
develop for Android, when you can't supply those same game
developers a top-notch development environment for the premier
platform for performance critical games - Windows 64-bit."
That at least implies that they're using the same IDE to
target both mobile and PC gaming, which is what I was
disputing. If you agree that they use completely different
toolchains, then it is irrelevant whether D supports
Windows-focused IDEs, as it doesn't affect mobile-focused devs.
My statements quoted didn't mention IDEs and they didn't imply
IDEs. What was implied was the initial line in the first post
"* better dll support for Windows". My assumption is that game
developers (or just developers) work on multiple OSes. If you
want them to use a language - like D - they should find it
compelling to use on all their platforms.
Your statement was made in direct response to my question, "why
spend time getting D great Windows IDE support if you don't think
Windows has much of a future?" I've already said I don't think
there's much overlap between mobile and PC games, the markets are
fairly disjoint. The top mobile games are never released for PC
and vice versa. As for dll support, that was not mentioned at
all in the OT thread to which you were responding, and you never
called it out.
I've always thought that flat Metro interface was best suited
for mobile displays, the easiest to view, render, and touch.
To some extent, all the other mobile interfaces have copied
it, with their move to flat UIs over the years. However, it
obviously takes much more than a nice GUI to do well in mobile.
I don't know what a flat UI is, but every mobile OS I have used
- Blackberry 9/10, Nokia Symbian, Nokia Linux, Palm OS, WebOS,
Firefox OS, iOS, Android - all have the same essential
interface. Icons on a scrolling desktop. Windows 8/10 Mobile,
with the resizable live tiles is the only one that does the
interface differently, and in my opinion, does it the best.
Yes, icons on a background- not sure how you call it a desktop
anymore ;) - are now the default, as opposed to Metro's live
tiles. I agree that Metro is better in that regard, though I
never handled a WinPhone for more than a couple minutes, but
there were all kinds of other problems with it. For example,
even in my limited use I remember it had animations when you were
jumping into apps or other views, presumably because it was so
slow that they wanted to stick something moving in there.
And doing one aspect of the UI better is meaningless when you
make so many other mistakes, whether supporting multi-core very
late or not realizing Continuum is a differentiator and pushing
that earlier.
As for flat UIs, you really should be aware of the effect your
beloved Metro has had:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_design
Why did they fund development of a new iMac Pro which is
coming this December as well as the new MacBook Pros that
came out this June? That's a contradiction of "milk it like
an iPod".
Because their userbase was rebelling? I take it you're not
that familiar with Mac users, but they were genuinely scared
that Apple was leaving them behind, since they weren't
refreshing Mac and Macbooks much anymore and all Apple's
focus is on iOS:
So, let them rebel. You said that they would like to see it
go away, and/or they want to milk it. If you have to spend
money on development to keep selling it, then you can't "milk
it".
You and I and Jobs may've let them rebel, but Apple is a
public corporation. They can't just let easy money go, their
shareholders may not like it. Perhaps you're not too familiar
with legacy calculations, but they're probably still making
good money off Macs, but it just distracts and keeps good
Apple devs off the real cash cow, iPhone. Even if the Mac
financials aren't _that_ great anymore, you don't necessarily
want to piss off your oldest and most loyal customers, who may
stop buying iPhones and iPads too.
It would either be you and Jobs, or just you, letting them
rebel. I would keep the line.
That's funny, as I was responding to your statement above, "So,
let them rebel." :D
The large Apple profit comes from offering quality products and
then pricing them at the highest gross profit margin in the
industry. In order to get people to pay a premium for their
products it helps to have a mystique or following, and the
macOS line helps to maintain their mystique and it is small
potatoes next to their phone business.
I've already said repeatedly that they're not going to drop the
Mac line anytime soon, so I don't know why you want to write a
paragraph justifying keeping it. As for mystique, it is
laughable that you think this outdated Mac line that practically
nobody buys compared to the iPhone provides any. :) More likely,
they will keep milking the Mac-buying chumps till they stop, or
when they can just tell them to buy an iPhone with a multi-window
option instead.
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:33:53 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/1/2017 11:42 AM, Bo wrote:
And frankly, Walter or whoever, there needed to have been put
a stop to this anti Windows bullshit several days ago. As long
as people use this level of disrespect towards community
members because they are not using the "right" platform.
Don't worry, Windows remains a high priority platform for D.
In the not-so-long run, all the platforms are dead. Little to
none of D will work on any platform prior to 10 years ago or
so. D needs to run on the major platforms of today, and that
certainly includes Windows.
Nobody is obliged to work on any platform they don't want to
work on. And nobody is entitled to berate anyone for working on
any platform they want to.
This post contradicts or corrects nothing said in this thread,
but simply responds to the crazy, unsupported claims of this guy.
I understand that you probably didn't read this OT thread but
maybe just saw your name and wanted to reassure this guy, but you
should have at least read the responses to him, where I pointed
out that it's bonkers to suggest what was written, ie showing
that Windows is declining so we should limit our future
investment, shows "disrespect" to him or is "anti Windows."