04-09-2010, 02:39 AM
It's worth also linking the follow-up from Gruber, http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_ap...ection_331
I agree with his conclusions.
1) It was Apple's decision to make. (They don't "owe" devs the chance to stay ensconced in their favorite non-sanctioned environment, which seems to be the tone of devs not wanting to use the tools Apple mandates.) It's not an "ulterior motive," it's pretty clear what Apple wants, and why.
2) History shows that the likelihood of cross- or meta-compiled apps having the full user experience for every platforms is not good.
There are degrees of this. The Mac OS, being a desktop OS, is still a victim of apps that don't always act "Mac-like" to the extent that whenever a new app comes out that the dev is particularly proud of they'll herald the fact that it's Cocoa or that it uses this-or-that OS X technology. We can't even get full compliance on this from Apple, who only recently rewrote Quicktime in Cocoa—we're still waiting on things like iTunes and Final Cut Pro to be written as they really should.
I agree with his conclusions.
1) It was Apple's decision to make. (They don't "owe" devs the chance to stay ensconced in their favorite non-sanctioned environment, which seems to be the tone of devs not wanting to use the tools Apple mandates.) It's not an "ulterior motive," it's pretty clear what Apple wants, and why.
2) History shows that the likelihood of cross- or meta-compiled apps having the full user experience for every platforms is not good.
There are degrees of this. The Mac OS, being a desktop OS, is still a victim of apps that don't always act "Mac-like" to the extent that whenever a new app comes out that the dev is particularly proud of they'll herald the fact that it's Cocoa or that it uses this-or-that OS X technology. We can't even get full compliance on this from Apple, who only recently rewrote Quicktime in Cocoa—we're still waiting on things like iTunes and Final Cut Pro to be written as they really should.