Ironically Apple is also the ones who kicked off the entire PWA race because of the lack of an SDK when the iPhone launched. The messaging then was "build for the web, that is better than native" and now its "native or gtfo" and web apps are not preferred. The last 5 years that I've built web versions of apps first, the client told me "look the web app is great, hard to tell its a web app honestly. Except when I want to..." and you all know the rest of the conversation from here.
Firefox, I love you, but you're bringing me down. We need a powerful, semi-native, offline capable architecture for the web. I don't care about the PWA spec, it's quite messy handling the implementation of one. But I do think it has always been the vision that the web is accessible regardless of physical connection to it.
As long as I can remember in this industry we've swung back and forth between "thin" and "thick" clients as if one way is the right way. Microservices over monoliths, etc. It's all the same symptom that naturally we don't want to grapple complexity. This announcement is yet another entry in the cannon of thin vs thick. It's a hard problem and any PM who only cares about optimizing time spent will say everything they can once they've zeroed in on the perceived waste.
Apple's love for native apps began - if I remember correctly - with the popularity of jailbroken devices and third party app stores like Cydia that could unleash the full potential of iPhone 1. Until then, Jobs was stubbornly against giving developers access to the native ecosystem and preferred that they develop web applications. I wonder if browsers would be full-fledged VMs by now if we had continued along the web application trajectory.
This seems like a misconception. It's clear that Apple was brewing the SDK for developer adoption and that their crowing about web apps was a stop-gap measure.
Are we really imagining Apple brought out a public SDK, set up the app approval system, certification, all that stuff, updated Xcode to support it all on a whim in under a year (starting with iPhoneOS 2) just because Cydia existed No way, José.
Apple are good but even they can't pull all that out of their ass overnight. Web was clearly a stop-gap because the SDK wasn't ready and iPhoneOS was, at the time, an outlier in purposefully not supporting Java ME apps.
Apple's love for native apps began - if I remember correctly - with the popularity of jailbroken devices and third party app stores like Cydia that could unleash the full potential of iPhone 1
As someone who developed a couple of the first round of web apps for the original iPhone, while waiting for the first SDK, I can tell you that this it not true.
To someone evaluating it from the outside using a list of release dates, it may seem logical. But an SDK isn't invented overnight.
Hmm you are right I came to that conclusion largely from Apple's original messaging and the change in stance around the time jailbreaking was getting popular.
> As someone who developed a couple of the first round of web apps for the original iPhone, while waiting for the first SDK, I can tell you that this it not true.
Were you given early access to the SDK before release?
This is a press release in their "Newsroom" section. They don't say "you" because they are describing what users can do, not what reporters covering this can do
I can't count how many times I've submitted a patch only to hear my supervisors complain that I made a contribution to the thing that makes the business profitable.
I know you are deploying irony but due to competing interpretations I can't figure out its intent. Do you mean the supervisors do complain or they don't?
Company A and Company B both use the same FOSS application. Company A has internal devs that add/fix the FOSS, but keep those updates internal. This gives Company A an advantage Company B does not get. Company A managers recognize this, and feel that since the updates were made on company time, they do not have to provide that to the rest of the world. Company A devs commit their updates to the repository, and now Company A mangers feel like they have given away work product for free. Lots of way pointy hair bosses to be upset in this scenario.
One of things I absolutely despise about the JS community is this obsession with build tools. JS is meant to be a runtime language and the amount of transpilers, minifiers, uglifiers, obfusicationifiers, is absolutely endemic to the messy state of change the language is undergoing.
However with this release I'm excited to start deleting a bunch of ridiculous build code to make Webpack work. Really a build tool is a tool, it should never be in the way of developing features. I haven't enjoyed using webpack until now. No sensible defaults, poor documentation, and no standard conventions. This release changes all of those complaints. A boost for productivity is a win in my book.
Not all web developers build complex web apps out of sport, it is demanded of us to deliver that. JS as a runtime language had poor first time support to help us manage that complexity. We are lucky that some well meaning folks decided to offer tools to help us with that, and the ecosystem has been maturing.
Probably the reason you perceive this obsession with build tools is that incrementally each one had the goal to tackle a set of problems and it did, but then new pain points appeared and other tools were developed to help with that.
That being said, we seem to have reached a rather stable period without major raptures in the landscape for a couple of years. Maybe the growing pains are subsiding.
Funny how you rarely see the same complaint about C++. You've got CMake, Make, Conan, vcpkg, and a bunch of other build tools that all require a hugely complicated setup process to get right. None of these ship with sensible defaults out of the box, and the documentation for them (especially CMake) is absolutely horrible, worse than any JS build tool.
Transpilers are nasty alright, but I like being able to write in Typescript and LESS, and to have my src split into multiple files but my distribution as a single Js file
>One of things I absolutely despise about the JS community is this obsession with build tools. JS is meant to be a runtime language and the amount of transpilers, minifiers, uglifiers, obfusicationifiers, is absolutely endemic to the messy state of change the language is undergoing.
All of it is ultimately to turn JS into a good language. Considering the state where JS started, it's been a heroic amount of effort.
- Lack of native module support.
- Lack of standard libraries.
- Need to run in the most hostile environments AKA web browsers and in windows/linux/macOs as nodejs.
Web pack, minifiers, transpilers etc are working( although, not pretty) solutions to the afore mentioned problems.
Do you have a source for algorithmic pumping and dumping being illegal? Any sources showing the charges laid against those involved in such pumping and dumping?
What would happen to me if I algorithmically pumped and dumped in the USA and was found guilty of it? Some community service or hard jail time?
Whether or not something is issued by a state has nothing to do with it being currency. I would challenge you to find a reputable source that says otherwise.
One description I saw said that while it's not really part of the definition of a currency, useful currencies are usually issued by a state because tax payments provide a built-in base of demand.
I guess people have different views on it, but to me it looks much more like an asset than a currency. You currently can't easily send money around without incurring massive fees.
I’m no cryptocurrency fanatic, but you can’t set up a mutually exclusive dichotomy between the terms asset and currency as the latter is a proper subset of the former: currency you own is an asset of yours, currency you owe is an asset of somebody else's (a debt).
Pedantry aside, however, I agree with you that these ‘tokens’ are cryptoassets, entities whose only saving grace is their deliberately manufactured scarcity.
That's all block chains are, really: methods of manufacturing scarcity on a distributed, open medium.
Block chains are a fundamental technological revolution which for the first time in human history provides a verifiable public accounting ledger which eliminates double spending, back dating transactions, and as you mentioned eliminates the ability to arbitrarily create more tokens.
Yup. I consider blockchains, at root, to be distributed DRM systems at heart: they ensure a consensus view of who has the exclusive right to use a given token at a precise moment in time. This is remarkable in that they build upon a P2P system that in the past was notorious for being piracy-friendly on the simple grounds that digital information is inherently infinitely duplicable. To think of blockchain technology in terms of currency replacement is a bit reductive (and, as far as my perspective of orthodox macroeconomics goes, pretty misguided). They will, however, have alternative applications of much greater import.
Their QA department has been in a downward spiral since 2014. I would love to name some people who were doing a fantastic job running the place until then, but I'll spare the embarrassment. This really isn't about some mega company not caring as much as one of their cornerstone departments being unable to function effectively.
"I have not, do you have those problems with 10k users too?"