Apple forbids languages other than Obj-C, C, C++ andJavascript

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, [email protected] posted:
> So C returns to a role as the "assembly language" target of a compiler
> for [your favorite language]?

That is forbidden by the Apple license terms. The "original language"
must be Obj-C, C, C++, or Javascript.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

---

› See More: Apple forbids languages other than Obj-C, C, C++ andJavascript

> > So C returns to a role as the "assembly language" target of a compiler
> > for [your favorite language]?
>
> That is forbidden by the Apple license terms. The "original language"
> must be Obj-C, C, C++, or Javascript.

I love it. You aren't allowed to sketch out a design in pseudo-code
or even a flowchart, but it must go directly from your brain to the
keyboard, in one of those languages. And they must of course demand the
source code, to be compiled with their compiler, and viewed by Apple to
make sure it couldn't have been originally created by a compiler, or
even manually transliterated, from a higher level language. C that's
gone through an obfuscator should keep some Apple employees busy
determining its provenance. Should make an interesting court fight when
a major app does something Apple doesn't want and they try to block its
use on those grounds. Will absurdities never cease.

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > So C returns to a role as the "assembly language" target of a compiler
> > > for [your favorite language]?
> >
> > That is forbidden by the Apple license terms. The "original language"
> > must be Obj-C, C, C++, or Javascript.
>
> I love it. You aren't allowed to sketch out a design in pseudo-code
> or even a flowchart, but it must go directly from your brain to the
> keyboard, in one of those languages.

nonsense.

> And they must of course demand the
> source code, to be compiled with their compiler, and viewed by Apple to
> make sure it couldn't have been originally created by a compiler, or
> even manually transliterated, from a higher level language.

nonsense. the source code is not submitted. it's very easy to tell by
looking at the binary if an app is using a runtime engine versus
c/c++/obj-c.

> C that's
> gone through an obfuscator should keep some Apple employees busy
> determining its provenance. Should make an interesting court fight when
> a major app does something Apple doesn't want and they try to block its
> use on those grounds. Will absurdities never cease.

it certainly hasn't stopped stupid posts.

> > > That is forbidden by the Apple license terms. The "original language"
> > > must be Obj-C, C, C++, or Javascript.
>
> ... the source code is not submitted. it's very easy to tell by
> looking at the binary if an app is using a runtime engine versus
> c/c++/obj-c.

So they don't care about the "original language", but only care if
the binary app includes code ("a runtime engine") they don't like?
If Flash is written in C, it's OK? If something is written in
assembly it's not OK?

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> > So C returns to a role as the "assembly language" target of a
compiler
>> > for [your favorite language]?
>>
>> That is forbidden by the Apple license terms. The "original
language"
>> must be Obj-C, C, C++, or Javascript.
>
> I love it. You aren't allowed to sketch out a design in pseudo-code
> or even a flowchart, but it must go directly from your brain to the
> keyboard, in one of those languages. And they must of course demand
the
> source code, to be compiled with their compiler, and viewed by Apple
to
> make sure it couldn't have been originally created by a compiler, or
> even manually transliterated, from a higher level language. C that's
> gone through an obfuscator should keep some Apple employees busy
> determining its provenance. Should make an interesting court fight
when
> a major app does something Apple doesn't want and they try to block
its
> use on those grounds. Will absurdities never cease.
>

It coulda been worse:

C:\> COPY CON PROGRAM.EXE

(C;]


--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"

Larry

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

> So they don't care about the "original language", but only care if
> the binary app includes code ("a runtime engine") they don't like?

they care about using standard apis so they have the granularity and
ability to suspend/resume parts of it, as needed. if it is a runtime
engine with all of the app logic running within it, they can't do much.

it also looks like an attempt (however stupid) to make it harder to
write apps for the iphone *and* competing platforms.

> If Flash is written in C, it's OK? If something is written in
> assembly it's not OK?

i highly doubt they'll reject an app that is written in assembly (or
can even tell) and writing an app entirely in assembly would be
colossally stupid anyway.