A while back it was considered one of Microsoft's evil ways, that they sold an OS and the leading apps on it. It was considered an unfair advantage because they had access to api's and the OS writing team, with a greater level of access than other companies.

In the same way, people get frustrated that Apple has prevented other developers to publish certain apps that are similar to Apple ones. This has changed over time but at least for a while it was a key argument.

Now, Google is going to start competing against the app marketplace in a larger way.

Beyond just an admission that there is a lack of quality apps for Android, or that the economy of apps on Android is not yet mature enough to draw the larger scale development that has begun to focus on Apple (especially with games but also with productivity tools), this is now an 800 lb Gorilla. Can you write your killer app before Google does it and gives it away?

How long before Google starts buying small developers who develop cool multiplatform apps and then squelch their development on Apple?

If Apple wants to create an Application store on their own OS, why is that a problem?

Steam has an Application Store on both the Mac and Windows.

If someone wants to create a service exactly like Apple's they can, with additional features as they see fit. Apple isn't preventing that.

The fact that software developers will have an incentive to use Apple's method of distribution is based on THEM GETTING AN ADVANTAGE. If you have a better method to help developers make a living on Apple, then go ahead!

It isn't like the phone. The phone is locked down. The phone is closed.

The OS they give away the development software for free, there are even open source repositories that you can use to get X11/Unix software.

Whine Whine whine.

Since in a small shop most people have to handle multiple roles, its sometimes hard to evaluate what your real work load is as far as any given set of tasks. The effort to effectively track each task is another task, and most people aren't really willing to give up 10-20% of their employees time to administrative tasks involving time tracking, so the end result is a sort of vague count "I spent about 5 hours programming, and about 2 hours production support and 1 hour administrative"

However, any computer programmer who is exhausted by heads down coding should probably find something better to do. When I was in my twenties I often would code for 10-12 hours a day for stretches lasting as long as a month. I think I once did 20 hour days for 4 weeks with really no break on weekends. Not that it was healthy, but as far as just pounding out code, testing it, packaging it for UAT and then moving on, I was pretty non-stop. Now that I am 40 I prefer not to do that however I had a project in which I lost my coder to another project and suddenly had to fill in for 8 weeks that wasn't on my schedule. I did a few all nighters, and certainly was averaging 14 hours per day for about 2 weeks, mostly coding.

Obviously that doesn't just mean writing a line of code a minute. It does involve testing things, finding answers to problems, designing algorithms, refactoring, but if you think programming is purely a function of typing out commands then I suspect you are writing trivial code.

In any case, I don't want to judge, and I don't think people are being fair talking about you being lazy. It is VERY difficult to really code productively when you have to break every hour. I find that I like to set myself up for 4 hour slots for programming, so that I can really warm up, get into the right head and have time to really complete a few significant things.

Still I think about programming when I am showering, or eating, or walking. Thinking is a big part of my job. Its really a challenge to just program at work and then stop thinking about it afterwards.

The real question always has to be, are you delivering what you promise to deliver on time. If you are having trouble getting things done on time then you have to worry about how you are organizing yourself. If you are feeling like you just can't program more than a certain number of hours a week without your head hurting then get a better monitor.

Funny. You call someone totalitarian because they choose to do something different than all the other phone makers. I would think requiring everyone to support Java would be totalitarian.

Maybe you don't really use the word properly. Maybe what you mean is, independent and competitive. Is that bad too?

For years Sun did nothing to get Java to work well on the Mac. Do you wonder that Apple doesn't really feel like relying on either them or Adobe to provide a user experience for their phones or tablets?

Whose numbers are these?
What is the percentage of?
Is it US? International?

This may be data, but is it information given the lack of context?

I am not sure how they came up with their criticsm of the Color classic being an indictment of the idea of the built in monitor.

"It could be argued that this system forced Apple to rethink building screens into systems. Sue it looks very good but it increases the overall cost of the system and limits users to a particular view. Built-in screens made sense at the start of the computing age but they have thankfully gone the way of the dinosaurs"

So I am wondering if anyone knows if the Australian Apple market is so different that the IMac and Macbook lines are marginal. In the US, the built in monitor is the standard on most models Apple sell. It is true that other computer companies don't do this on the desktop, but other than the mini there is no consumer desktop that Apple makes without being a single unit.

And the statement about the PowerPC is entirely 20/20 hindsight. The Intel Chips at the time were dogs. And apple is still producting development model and OS that differs entirely from the Windows one. As far as developer interest, I would say that once Mac OS X, and giving away the development tools began that jump start, and its still quite a bit different from any other environment.

Hard to imagine that the IPod Hi-Fi rates in any top 10 list. It seems so unimportant, but I guess Thomson saw one. That makes it special it seems considering he doesn't seem familiar with much about Apple's line from personal experience.

This is a point I really am trying to make too... The best code you do, the stuff that required you to actually use your brain hard, is going to be hard for YOU to maintain let alone others. You comment based on your own Eureka moments, you document your understanding, and hopefully it lets a person recognize that you were both solving the problem in a reasonable manner, and that your implementation and solution are in sync.

Beyond that, adding a few lines of code for clarity can also make it easier to debug, to extend and to implement in a different language.

Thank you for writing almost exactly what I wanted to say. I went through a weird emotional response. I almost want to call the writer a young whippersnapper...

It is pretty funny to say you aren't going to buy into dogma when nothing you are talking about is dogma. Even best practices are often stated in contexts. I won't reiterate the excellent rebuttals to the blog both on the blog and here.

---------------------

The more brilliant and exciting the code you write the more likely it is not a trivial and obvious solution. If all you do is code obvious solutions to common problems in standard idioms then you may be able to argue that your comments do not matter.

If you are writing something that was difficult for you to write (and the best programmers are lazy enough to try to avoid always rewriting trivial solutions) then you also are writing something that is difficult for not only other coders, but for YOU. That is to say that solving a complex problem in an ingenious and elegant way does not automatically mean that you will understand it later. Even a few months later you are going to wish you had explained some of the why and some of the what.

In the end most programmers comment only when they feel it is necessary. It isn't really enjoyable, it does take effort. Mostly we do it because we must. Depending on the language and context, you may be writing very formal documentation as part of your project, and some of that may be in the code itself. Other times, you write code that you think is a one off, and then somehow it ends up being a large project and suddenly you need to go back and comment to make it possible to hand it off.

I do feel as if the fellow who wrote this blog was not an experienced coder, and had never worked with other programmers...

Agreed 100%. I have had headhunters revise my resume from a format perspective so that it could fit within a format that the companies were looking for (often they want very little formatting) and when they did so they sent me back the revised copy.

The only other thing I have seen them do is remove my direct contact information from resume, to prevent the company from going around them. I respect that.