VisualSeed
About
- Banned
- Username
- VisualSeed
- Joined
- Visits
- 21
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 465
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 217
Reactions
-
Google mulling deep Android support for Apple's Swift language - report
This is a BetaMax vs VHS kinda thing. Go is currently more mature but has little support and not much traction in the community. Swift has massive traction simply because you can build iOS apps with it (and now code on other platforms) I think Swift will reach maturity before Go reaches marketshare just by the shear momentum it already has. Google can do a lot of things well, but most of the time fails miserably at promoting its own technologies. Too many internal fiefdoms protecting competing projects. Too many egos and a community that has been burned too many times after faithfully adopting a google technology only to have it abruptly abandoned on them on a whim, all contribute to this failure to reach orbit.mubaili said:It is weird. As they are standing now, Google's Go is a better language and much more mature. Not sure why Google is not pushing hard on the Go.
-
Google mulling deep Android support for Apple's Swift language - report
Google wouldn't benefit by forking it. They would benefit more by allowing app developers to port their iOS apps to Android with less ground up code rewriting than is required now. Google would still have to provide their own proprietary frameworks / classes as Apple's wouldn't port but they would save a tremendous amount of time and money by letting the community support and evolve Swift with Apple taking the lead while Google could contribute their enhancements to the project at large for everyone.wood1208 said:Apple made it open source for wide adoption but must keep control so it doesn't become like fragmented android. For Google, this is much better way out from under Java. Universities curriculum and enterprise IT development will embrace it in big way. IBM is an example. .
They actually have a history of this in the past. Google let Apple do most of the work to port WebKit to Windows. Without Apple's contributions Chrome for Windows would not be possible (or extremely delayed) Now, since Google has been moving ahead with a fork of Webkit called Blink all the chrome specific code from Webkit has been removed keeping it pure on all platforms while Blink supports vendor specific code like Google but retains backwards compatibility to WebKit.
-
Will Apple's 9.7" iPad Pro take a chunk out of Microsoft Windows?
I have been doing heavy lifting on the iPad (not even pro) for 4 years now. Although it may seem counterintuitive, the minimal interface and "watered-down" features have actually increased the quality and efficiency of my work.anantksundaram said:
Utterly clueless post.jbdragon said:
If all you do is media consumption and some lite work, a iPad works just fine.
-
Will Apple's 9.7" iPad Pro take a chunk out of Microsoft Windows?
Adobe will eventually do it on their own. They will eventually reach the point where mobile is the only place there is growth and to keep getting $50 a month from customers they will have to embrace it as more than just an extension of the desktop.ireland said:If I were Apple I'd pay $1B if necessary to Adobe to persuade them to bring PS-proper to iPad.
And I'd send Autodesk a few hundred million to bring AutoCAD over.
Apple has all the money in the world, they can use some here to achieve their goals for iPad. AutoCAD Photoshop and a few apps such as these created for touch would make all the difference in the world to how the iPad is perceived for professional work. And once these apps happen most every other pro app will want to follow.
AutoCAD 360 has been out for iOS for some time now and it is pretty good. AutoDesk has developed a lot of other really good apps too. SketchBook is one of the better drawing apps for the iPad and it is full-featured to the point of almost having too many features.
-
Macs may go even longer between revamps as Intel kills tick-tock
I agree, When Apple switched to Intel from PPC it was out of necessity. It became a net positive in many ways but they were pretty much at the end of the road with IBM and the PowerPC. Had they stayed on PPC there likely would be no mac today. Intel as of right now is at the top of the game in performance when it comes to CPUs. If they aren't advancing, nobody is advancing. Arm is advancing but it's in (for now) in an entirely different race and a mac architecture switch at this point would be settling for less and an unnecessary burden on the entire mac ecosystem with no gain. It is possible for Apple to make an Arm based MacBook, but judging by the problems Microsoft suffered with the arm based Surface RT in the market place, I don't see why Apple would want to do that to themselves. It wouldn't be iOS and would require arm based versions of software written for a special arm based MacOS X. Not exactly attractive to anyone.dysamoria said:Re: the discussion about switching CPU... Yeah... Like we need another transition period to lose tons of apps and drivers. It's hard enough to deal with support between OS X versions, let alone the architecture changeovers. Companies like when users are forced to re-buy stuff (which is why drivers stop being written for hardware that still works, screw you M-Audio/Avid), but developers hate change and resist it as much as possible. Apple's computer dominance isn't yet assured (especially on content creating workstations) and being able to port between Mac and Windows would be much more difficult for developers with a different CPU architecture put back into the mix. It would also kill the Mac-runs-Windows angle.
as for the primary topic of the article: the only way this Intel revelation should matter is if things like thunderbolt and usb chipsets (and whatever else) were hindered by the tick-uhhhh-tock three-step (like we are already waiting for Intel to make viable chipsets for thunderbolt 3 / display port with external Retina display capability).