My suggestion is to henceforth call FPC as Free Progressive C without
any other change.
Problem solved. It is C now. They must approve all apps developed with it.
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/ma
On 9 April 2010 18:07, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> Hence, it would be useful if enough people send in their FPC-related
> comments via http://developer.apple.com/contact/, so the reworded version
> could maybe take into account our situation as well.
Even though I don't program for the iPhone, I did
On 4/9/2010 8:40 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
This is pretty awesome for reading FPC documentation, websites or
viewing source code! I now have almost 90 lines of code I can see all
at once. Plus our projects have rather a lot of units, so having an
enlarged Project Inspector windows is pretty gr
On 09 Apr 2010, at 18:35, Travis Siegel wrote:
> perhaps there's something I'm not aware of here, but the developer kit is
> free to anyone who has an ADC account, you merely need to register with apple
> to be able to download the developer kit and develop apps.
Getting the certificates requi
On 09 Apr 2010, at 18:35, Travis Siegel wrote:
> I don't think you need to jail break anything to put apps on the phone that
> don't come from the store, what's preventing folks from just uploading the
> apps to their phones then executing them as normal?
Apple's code signing process. An appli
On Apr 9, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Really? I was under the impression that you need to jail break the
phone to be able to install any app (or get a dev licence, of course).
I don't think you need to jail break anything to put apps on the phone
that don't come from the store, w
On 09 Apr 2010, at 14:17, Henry Vermaak wrote:
"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or
JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine..."
FWIW, I've read some other comments in the mean time (on Apple's
closed iPhone developer forms) from developers compla
On 9 April 2010 15:18, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> There's of course nothing from preventing anyone from distributing their own
> app. There's no reason you *have* to submit your app to the app store.
> Admittedly, it makes it more difficult if your app isn't in the store, but
> folks can still dow
On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Anyone is of course free to keep using FPC for the iPhone (I'm not
going to remove any iPhone support from the compiler in the
foreseeable future) and to submit FPC-compiled apps to the AppStore.
Just don't be surprised if they get rejected
On 09 Apr 2010, at 14:47, Alexander Grau wrote:
I think it depends on the intepretation of the concrete code and
Apple's agreements are subject to this interpretation.
Of course it is (since, as was mentioned on the mac-pascal list,
virtually every programmer has a personal library that wr
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
On 09 Apr 2010, at 14:14, Alexander Grau wrote:
If we look at C or Objective-C from a different view, then such a
language could be just another compiler 'target' - how difficult
would it be to add a C/Obj-C target to fpc?
I assume all ordinary machine code can be expre
Hi,
I've read a article on 'Coding Horror' and thought I would try it out
for a day. Rotate your desktop (and screen) by 90 degrees. That gives
me 900x1440 resolution on my LCD display.
This is pretty awesome for reading FPC documentation, websites or
viewing source code! I now have almost 90 lin
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
> > But that doesn't make sense what they write - A C program can be written by
> > hand and by a generator. It's still a C program. No difference from the
> > outside view. ?!
>
> Exactly, it's absurd. The worst thing about this fiasco is that
> peopl
On 09 Apr 2010, at 14:14, Alexander Grau wrote:
If we look at C or Objective-C from a different view, then such a
language could be just another compiler 'target' - how difficult
would it be to add a C/Obj-C target to fpc?
I assume all ordinary machine code can be expressed in C too. C
c
Henry Vermaak het geskryf:
>
> The whole thing just seems so absurd.
Absolutely! It shouldn't be about the language used, but rather the
integration and usage of the running application itself. Apple is totally
bonkers!
With all their "forced usage requirements" (regarding Mac OS + hardware,
iPh
On 9 April 2010 13:20, Alexander Grau wrote:
>
> But that doesn't make sense what they write - A C program can be written by
> hand and by a generator. It's still a C program. No difference from the
> outside view. ?!
Exactly, it's absurd. The worst thing about this fiasco is that
people aren't
Henry Vermaak schrieb:
On 9 April 2010 13:14, Alexander Grau wrote:
If we look at C or Objective-C from a different view, then such a language
could be just another compiler 'target' - how difficult would it be to add a
C/Obj-C target to fpc?
No, it specifically forbids this. Here's
On 9 April 2010 13:17, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 13:14, Alexander Grau wrote:
>>
>> If we look at C or Objective-C from a different view, then such a language
>> could be just another compiler 'target' - how difficult would it be to add a
>> C/Obj-C target to fpc?
>
> No, it specific
On 9 April 2010 13:14, Alexander Grau wrote:
>
> If we look at C or Objective-C from a different view, then such a language
> could be just another compiler 'target' - how difficult would it be to add a
> C/Obj-C target to fpc?
No, it specifically forbids this. Here's the text:
"Applications mu
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
Jonas: what are your plans regarding this?
None.
If we look at C or Objective-C from a different view, then such a
language could be just another compiler 'target' - how difficult would
it be to add a C/Obj-C target to fpc?
I assume all ordinary machine code can b
On 09 Apr 2010, at 13:26, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
So then I guess fpc can fake it? The whole thing just seems so
absurd.
That amounts to a constant cat-and-mouse game, requiring vast
resources.
It would most probably result in a cease-and-
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
> > simply infeasible, not to mention stupid). In that utility they can either
> > check for some signature code that their compilers generate, or per
> > identified other compiler/framework add a check for signature code/data
> > generated by that compi
On 9 April 2010 12:19, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 09 Apr 2010, at 13:08, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>
>> One, perhaps ignorant, question. How will they know which compiler
>> you used? Will they really inspect every app?
>
> They presumably already use an automated scanner app to check whether you
> on
On 09 Apr 2010, at 13:08, Henry Vermaak wrote:
One, perhaps ignorant, question. How will they know which compiler
you used? Will they really inspect every app?
They presumably already use an automated scanner app to check whether
you only use published API's (manually checking millions of
On 9 April 2010 12:13, ik wrote:
>
> It's very easy to know what compiler was made to compile something.
> Every compile create different symbols and code structure to the binary.
> I can tell you in "naked eye" by viewing the binary content of a file, what
> was the compiler that created that cod
http://ik.homelinux.org/
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 14:08, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 10:51, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> >
> > On 09 Apr 2010, at 11:43, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
> >
> >> According to
> >> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler, in
> >
On 9 April 2010 10:51, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 09 Apr 2010, at 11:43, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
>
>> According to
>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler , in
>> the new SDK programs compiled with fpc are not allowed anymore. A quote
>> "Applications mu
27 matches
Mail list logo
