That wasn't CodeWarrior, exactly. You are thinking of PowerPlant, which was an application framework included with CodeWarrior. I agree that PowerPlant was a significant issue for moving an application to a different framework (Cocoa), and Apple is not going to support anything similar on the iPhone.
I was talking about the general use of CodeWarrior to develop Mac applications using the Mac OS API, without using a framework like PowerPlant. This is what I would expect to see if Apple decided to allow other Visual Studio to develop iPhone applications.
I do not see any problem with a different C/C++/ObjC compiler being used to develop iPhone applications, as long as there are no API overlaying libraries involved.
Well, yes, I suppose I was using "CodeWarrior" to include the entire package, IDE, comipler(s), etc., and PowerPlant. But, it looks like the whole VS thing was just a baseless rumor.
The problem is C# and .NET are _NOT_ open standards. They are proprietary technologies controlled by a single vendor...Microsoft. A real open standards is controlled by a vendor neutral standards body like Oasis or WC3. ISO used to be a solid standards organization until Microsoft bribed and stacked committees to get their proprietary, patent encumbered MSOOXML format pushed through. ... Moonlight does not run 90% of the Silverlight content out there. How can it, when all the meat of Silverlight is a proprietary, patent encumbered Microsoft technology?
Yes, there are standards, there are open standards, and there are free open standards. I'm not sure why there's so much confusion around this simple point, particularly with people who supposedly deal with complicated concepts on a regular basis.
The problem is C# and .NET are _NOT_ open standards.
They are, by definition. An open standard does not need to be controlled by a committee. You are changing the definition of the word.
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available for anyone to implement. C# and .NET are open standards.
They are not committee-controlled open standard, but it's sure as hell a lot closer to being an open standard than standards which require annual fees to use.
Quote:
Furthermore, to do anything with Silverlight or .net you need all the proprietary libraries Microsoft has.
Not true at all. Look at Moonlight and Mono. The core libraries are free and part of the ECMA and ISO standards.
Things such as WPF are not open standards, just like how CoreText isn't an open standard.
Quote:
Moonlight does not run 90% of the Silverlight content out there. How can it, when all the meat of Silverlight is a proprietary, patent encumbered Microsoft technology?
This is a lie. Simple as that.
Back up your claim or retract it.
For the basics: To be an ISO or ECMA standard, all patents related to the standard must be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". For MS' C# & .NET related patents, Microsoft provides them royalty-free. Further still, MS has made a public legal commitment (public covenants) to never sue anyone who use uses patents related to the technologies, even in derivative works (like Mono and Moonlight). The 'meat' of Silverlight is, by definition, an open standard. Not only is it an open standard, it's completely free to use with no threat of any lawsuits for patent infringement. This is more than we can say than what everyone here to be an open standard, like h.264.
Edit: MS even goes a step farther here and provides cross-platform binaries for implementations of mp3, h264, and some other codecs to Moonlight so they can include them in their distribution without paying anything to MPEG-LA or Fraunhauffer. This is because MS is paying for the license, even for Moonlight.
Yes, there are standards, there are open standards, and there are free open standards. I'm not sure why there's so much confusion around this simple point, particularly with people who supposedly deal with complicated concepts on a regular basis.
You really should look up what an open standard is. A committee controlling it does not make it an open standard.
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition but interpretations varies with usage.
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasise different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.
Everyone seems to agree that being committee-designed is not a requirement for being an open standard, but MANY people (including Microsoft and the W3C -- the organization behind virtually every web standard) assume an open standard needs to be royalty free. That would mean h264 is not an open standard in many people's eyes.
C# and .NET are absolutely open standards. They are 100% free and ECMA and ISO standards for anyone to implement for no charge. It even comes with perpetual public commitments to never sue for patent infringement -- effectively, anyone who uses the standard licenses the patents free of charge.
If C# and .NET are not open standards, then neither is Javascript. Javascript was developed by Netscape and then submitted to the ECMA and became an open standard when they did. It was not designed by a committee.
Comments
That wasn't CodeWarrior, exactly. You are thinking of PowerPlant, which was an application framework included with CodeWarrior. I agree that PowerPlant was a significant issue for moving an application to a different framework (Cocoa), and Apple is not going to support anything similar on the iPhone.
I was talking about the general use of CodeWarrior to develop Mac applications using the Mac OS API, without using a framework like PowerPlant. This is what I would expect to see if Apple decided to allow other Visual Studio to develop iPhone applications.
I do not see any problem with a different C/C++/ObjC compiler being used to develop iPhone applications, as long as there are no API overlaying libraries involved.
Well, yes, I suppose I was using "CodeWarrior" to include the entire package, IDE, comipler(s), etc., and PowerPlant. But, it looks like the whole VS thing was just a baseless rumor.
The problem is C# and .NET are _NOT_ open standards. They are proprietary technologies controlled by a single vendor...Microsoft. A real open standards is controlled by a vendor neutral standards body like Oasis or WC3. ISO used to be a solid standards organization until Microsoft bribed and stacked committees to get their proprietary, patent encumbered MSOOXML format pushed through. ... Moonlight does not run 90% of the Silverlight content out there. How can it, when all the meat of Silverlight is a proprietary, patent encumbered Microsoft technology?
Yes, there are standards, there are open standards, and there are free open standards. I'm not sure why there's so much confusion around this simple point, particularly with people who supposedly deal with complicated concepts on a regular basis.
The problem is C# and .NET are _NOT_ open standards.
They are, by definition. An open standard does not need to be controlled by a committee. You are changing the definition of the word.
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available for anyone to implement. C# and .NET are open standards.
They are not committee-controlled open standard, but it's sure as hell a lot closer to being an open standard than standards which require annual fees to use.
Furthermore, to do anything with Silverlight or .net you need all the proprietary libraries Microsoft has.
Not true at all. Look at Moonlight and Mono. The core libraries are free and part of the ECMA and ISO standards.
Things such as WPF are not open standards, just like how CoreText isn't an open standard.
Moonlight does not run 90% of the Silverlight content out there. How can it, when all the meat of Silverlight is a proprietary, patent encumbered Microsoft technology?
This is a lie. Simple as that.
Back up your claim or retract it.
For the basics: To be an ISO or ECMA standard, all patents related to the standard must be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". For MS' C# & .NET related patents, Microsoft provides them royalty-free. Further still, MS has made a public legal commitment (public covenants) to never sue anyone who use uses patents related to the technologies, even in derivative works (like Mono and Moonlight). The 'meat' of Silverlight is, by definition, an open standard. Not only is it an open standard, it's completely free to use with no threat of any lawsuits for patent infringement. This is more than we can say than what everyone here to be an open standard, like h.264.
Edit: MS even goes a step farther here and provides cross-platform binaries for implementations of mp3, h264, and some other codecs to Moonlight so they can include them in their distribution without paying anything to MPEG-LA or Fraunhauffer. This is because MS is paying for the license, even for Moonlight.
Yes, there are standards, there are open standards, and there are free open standards. I'm not sure why there's so much confusion around this simple point, particularly with people who supposedly deal with complicated concepts on a regular basis.
You really should look up what an open standard is. A committee controlling it does not make it an open standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition but interpretations varies with usage.
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasise different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.
Everyone seems to agree that being committee-designed is not a requirement for being an open standard, but MANY people (including Microsoft and the W3C -- the organization behind virtually every web standard) assume an open standard needs to be royalty free. That would mean h264 is not an open standard in many people's eyes.
C# and .NET are absolutely open standards. They are 100% free and ECMA and ISO standards for anyone to implement for no charge. It even comes with perpetual public commitments to never sue for patent infringement -- effectively, anyone who uses the standard licenses the patents free of charge.
If C# and .NET are not open standards, then neither is Javascript. Javascript was developed by Netscape and then submitted to the ECMA and became an open standard when they did. It was not designed by a committee.