Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment As I said on my Journal... (Score 1) 315

I wrote this about the Mac, but it applies to the iPhone and iPad as well:

1) Mac users are highly sensitive to the quality of your products' user experience. What this means is, go native or don't bother. Even though Google Earth and Photoshop are rife with UI atrocities, don't imagine that you can get away with ignoring the rules like they can. They're 500-pound Gorillas, and you're not. If you are Google or Adobe, get with the program and write a Cocoa UI, already. It's about time.

2) The native language for the Mac and the iPhone is Objective-C. Get used to it; it's not hard to learn. Any developer familiar with C should be able to learn Objective-C in a day, and be an Objective-C language lawyer within a week if he cares to. Yes, there are Ruby, Python, and other bridges you can use, and they work just fine, but limit this to integrating existing libraries with your apps. DO NOT try to use the bridges as a way to avoid learning the environment you're working with.

3) A cross-platform GUI is neither feasible nor desirable. You can't #ifdef the difference between Cocoa, xlib, and Win32. Don't believe me? Look at OpenOffice. (If OpenOffice looks OK to you, then please, forget about offering your products on the Mac. You'll only cause us pain.)

4) Don't bother with third-party cross-platform GUI libraries like Qt. Yeah, you can make it sort of work, but you'll get a lot of complaints from your Mac customers, and it will be more expensive than properly factoring your code and writing a native GUI for each platform. For every Mac customer who complains about a bad UI, there are many more who took one look at it and decided never to do business with the vendor in question.

Comment Re:Does someone at NATO have a sense of humour? (Score 1) 418

Actually, the movie (and book) got the name from the NATO terminology for the Soviets' new super-fighter. The project that resulted in this aircraft began in the late eighties. Of course, back in the Cold War intelligence reports from the USSR were patchy, and nobody was quite certain whether the documentation they were seeing referred to conceptual designs for a future fighter, or to an actual flying prototype. It was just on the edge of plausibility that there was a real Firefox out there, not just a prototype.

It was the same in America: design and planning work on what became the F-22 began in 1981.

Anything cut to length will be too short.