Apple Unveils Extra Leopard-isms To Developers 181
devilsecret writes to point out that some of the new Apple capabilities for developers on Leopard have been unveiled. The most interesting parts appear to be the opening of more of iLife to other programs, and the inclusion of Ruby on Rails.
RoR bandwagon? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RoR bandwagon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't that mean they jumped on the bandwagon a little too late?
Anyway, RoR isn't the solution to all programming problems, but it seems to have enough steam that it's going to stick around. OSX comes with Apache, and it's not hard to get PHP, MySQL, or whatever else installed. There's a ruby interpreter in the OS already, and a lot of the prominent people in the RoR community are OSX users.
I can't RTFA to know what they've actually done, but why wouldn't they support RoR? In spite of not finding the meaning of life, solving world hunger, or finding hot women for me, it's a pretty good tool. Something can be useful without solving every single problem, you know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RoR is simply going to be included. Nothing more at the moment on that count. Apple already has a easy-to-use database solution for Objective-C applications in CoreData (though I wish they would make it multi-user/computer capable).
And PHP is already included in the OS, you just have to turn it on. This is somewhat good from a security standpoint, but I wish they would put in a button to turn it on (next to the one to turn on Apache).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Minor correction, but, there's nothing you need to do in order to 'turn PHP on' with OS X. Pop open the command line and type 'php -v,' and, like any application, you'll notice it's always there for you to use.
It's also configured with Apache by default, so you just have to start apache and you're able to serve PHP documents. It's PHP4, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad they don't. If someone can't figure out how to turn it on without a simple button shouldn't be using it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, did they jump on too soon, or too late?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have concrete links and facts to support your observation? I'm working (for a few months now) on a slightly RoR-like extension to PHP5 (and later), and I've also noticed some weaknesses of RoR which I'm trying to av
Re:RoR bandwagon? (Score:5, Funny)
This is Slashdot. What do YOU think?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure. If he's anything like me, he probably just doesn't remember what they were. He could find them with Google, but doesn't feel like it and suggests you go Google it for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many things in Rails that make you start to wonder why J2EE wasn't designed in a similar vain.
Because J2EE was designed for people that demanded things like clustering and distributed transactions. I'm not saying J2EE's initial iterations weren't a complete clusterfuck, but they did have different design goals.
I have an app that requires submitting con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of the answer may be that Java and Ruby are very different languages. Java is fairly static, rigid and verbose, with lots of redundancy in the code. Programs are typically designed top-down, along language features, so that the program is made to fit the language.
Ruby is almost the opposite: it's very dynamic, very succinct, and there's virtually no redundancy in the code. Programs can be
Re: (Score:2)
There are some interesting features of RoR that do represent a shift. But there are some disadvantages to RoR as well.
It is important that people start rethinking the codebase for web sites and web applications to split the backend and frontend a little cleaner. This makes it easier for teams to develop and easier to debug. RoR makes this pretty much mandatory.
When it comes to their database practices - primary keys and such -- they pretty much suck. The approach they have here is one of over simplifi
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, I demand facts and evidence to back up assertions, but because you wrote it so eloquently and described something shiny, I think I'm going to let it slide this time and simply believe everything you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ehm. Ok, I know the way out...
slashdotted already? (Score:5, Informative)
Some working links: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple Insider post [appleinsider.com]
Apple's Developer Overview site [apple.com]
I wish MS would come out with something like this (Score:2)
Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, today I have to use Visual Studio and I'm trying to figure out how to get my program to run in a Release build. It runs OK in Debug, but for whatever reason I'm getting an error dialog about not having a manifest file to load the C++ runtime DLL (?). I wish I could use XCode to write Windows apps. Or alternatively that our Windows users would just all buy Macs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Although I prefer the look and feel of Apple's dev tools to Microsoft's, I find that I get work done more quickly with Visual Studio than with Xcode. More accurately, I get work done more quickly with Visual Studio and the excellent third-party plugin Visual Assist [wholetomato.com], which pr
Re: (Score:2)
If you are talking about my case (the GPP), then yes, actually I am doing a Qt application that ships on Mac, WIndows, and Linux. And Windows is a fscking pain in the ass. What I meant was that if the WIndows users would just switch to mac, I wouldn't have to screw with Windows and could just do Mac
Today (and I literally mean today), I am working on a specific issue in Visual Studio. But we DO have a Mac version.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a Linux and Mac user at home with almost no MS software (I have played with Vista RC1 recently and have Win2k in a VM for web site testing). I'm not a fan of MS or their software but I have to use XP at work. I think it's important that I say this up front because of what is to follow.
We have VS 2005 at work and I recently got permission to install it (no one else was using it as our resident Windows dev has gone back to Delphi) to create some tools to make my life easier. I have to say I was very ple
Re: (Score:2)
Instant slashdotting! (Score:2, Funny)
Boom! (Score:3, Funny)
BOOM!
Boom... Boom [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're way behind the times, Mr Area-56 (Score:2)
Why do people pay for this stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For most applications compiled code is quite small when compared to the graphics and other resour
64 bit applications in Leopard (Score:2, Informative)
On PowerPC you'd only want applications that actually need to do 64-bit math or address more than 2 or 3 GB of memory to be 64-bit, but for x86 it's a different story because the extra registers that are available in 64-bit mode may make ap
Re: (Score:2)
Just an FYI: for those of you that really want smaller binaries, the lipo(1) program can take a universal binary and strip out the executable resources for architectures you know you won't need. lipo comes with your Mac and can be found at /usr/bin/.
I personally think such an approach is a recipe for disaster, but if you're trying to make a LiveCD or some sort of mini-installlation, it might be the only way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (Score:5, Informative)
You get built in backup and restore software
You get automatic backup functionality
You get virtual desktops
You get built in remote presentation and remote control software
You get new Widgets plus the ability to turn any webpage into a widget
You get a new mail program with increased planning functionality
New group management functionality in Mail and in iCal
Under the hood you get:
New animation libraries
New 64 bit CPU optimizations
New resolution independent ui
You pay for this stuff because you find it useful.
Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (Score:4, Informative)
Now in Leopard, the Objective-C runtime has been updated to include a thoroughly modern and high performance garbage collection system, making memory management a thing of the past.
Garbage collection is included as part of the Obj-C 2.0 runtime... Say bye bye to most memory leaks..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- Xcode 3.0, which has a lot of features I've been missing.
- Xray, built off of DTrace (this looks incredible).
- Dashcode, a widget development environment.
- Image Kit.
- OpenGL improvements.
- Code signing.
Then a few other things for end-users (and we don't even know all of what's in leopard yet)
- Additional iChat features and integration.
- Resolution independence.
- Improved voice synthesis.
- Improved features for searching.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a little web-app, so I didn't much care for the sound of this. A trip to Apple tells me more:
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tool, and if you don't want to use it, then don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple uses a different numbering scheme than most software manufacturers, at least for the Mac OS X releases.
You see, the "X" in Mac OS X stands for the number 10. When Apple does a major release they don't want to have to go to Mac OS XI, Mac OS XII, etc. What they do instead is Mac OS
Re: (Score:2)
Cat Names (Score:2)
They've already deviated from the "big cat" naming trend. Pumas (10.1) are classified as small cats because they can not roar. Apple has applied for cat related trademarks including Cougar, Lynx, and Lion. That'd take us through 10.8. What about 10.9? I'm guessing:
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What major differences between XP and 2000? (Score:2)
I don't know... I don't normally bother upgrading unless I need to, I'm still using Panther at home and the only reason I upgraded from Jaguar was that I bought new hardware.
There were some major major differences between XP and 2000
I'm still using 2000 because I've yet to find anything in XP that I actually need. The only thing that I've even missed is Bluetooth support. If they'd put a full Citrix server in there inste
Re: (Score:2)
Go to the OS X page on Apple's site to see most of the announced "user-side" improvements, and here [apple.com] to see the developer stuff. Just simple stuff like the iCal store can mean lot's of nifty little utilities being generated for that system.
And to reiterate, those are just th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not a minor revision. Maybe you should take a look at some [arstechnica.com] Arstechnica [arstechnica.com] reviews [arstechnica.com] to see how much changes in each OS X release.
You also have to remember that Apple doesn't reveal their products until just before release, and we've only been given a developer API peek at Leopard. MacWorld '07 will be the big Leopard reveal.
Re: (Score:2)
Upgraded UI, symmetric multithreading, better security (if you count SP2), CD writer support, Remote Desktop, firewall, fast user switching, system restore, DLL backup, etc. Plus if you count Server 2003 you get the very re-worked IIS 6 and some more toys.
IOW, Windows 2000 to Windows XP is about the same jump as a dot release in OS X, and both cost money.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, aside from the goofy Luna theme that was hacked in after Apple revealed Aqua, everything you listed could have been in a Microsoft Plus! pack.
Re: (Score:2)
I count through SP2 since it was free (like saying advances with 10.4.8 don't count).
W2K hyperthreading didn't really work, it just saw two processors, meaning upgrading your 2xSM
Re: (Score:2)
SP2 came out years after XP, and all it really did was update the firewall, add a Welcome Center, and recompile some DLLs using the latest Visual Studio. I'm not counting advances in 10.4.8 because those kinds of free minor updates from Apple are mostly bug fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Features Added & Defaults Changed (Score:2)
The reason is mostly one of developer convenience, IMHO.
The format of NIB files and the bundle structure changed in 10.2. For developers, this was a huge difference. Localizing an app (as I recall) under Puma (10.1) was time consuming. The binary-only NIB file format before 10.1 meant you either needed to localize your app in your code or by manually opening the NIBs in interface builder and changing things. 10.2 allowed f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this not a flamebait? First, you bring up a question that has been answered about a jazillion times already - Steve Jobs is in lovez with the number 10 (or in Apple lingo "X") and from now on for Mac OS the major version number is the one after the first decimal point. And second, even if you ac
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the major change between 2000 and XP was in the user interface, right? And that 2000 was NT 5.0, and XP was NT 5.1? I'd argue that the real "major" OS change was from XP to XP SP2. Oh, and the charge for the 2000 to XP upgrade was $200; the charge for the OS X upgrades is usually $129.
Apple charged for all X.Y changes under OS X except for the leap (and it was a leap) from 10.0 to 10.1. These changes are significant version changes (heck, 10.4 includes a whole new architecture).
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple's minor revisions contain more updates and changes than a completely new windos version, for example.
Check the list of changes, not the number that changes in the descriptor.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people will pay for it? As long as the majority of consumers are willing to pay the price then the price is not too high. That's how the free market works.
And not to nitpick, but there's no such thing as an OSX "upgrade". There's only two boxed verions (client and server). The disks you buy contain the whole OS, you don't have to give the license key from a previous version or have a previous version installed on you
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay? you don't have to. If you like Tiger (10.4) then stick with it abd if you buy a new computer in 2007 the newer OSX will be included for "free".
So does this have a performance impact? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt Apple will be able to keep it up forever. I haven't heard anything on what the early builds of 10.5 are like, but (being early builds) it's probably too soon to draw any conclusions from them. Still, eventually they'll run out of things to opti
Re: (Score:2)
The engineers at Apple have been tightening up their code with each release, finding new and better ways to do things. With each new release I've been finding my systems gaining reliability and speed. Memory requirements have slowly been climbing but overall CPU usage is steady or even a bit lower.
On older systems you might not be able to use some of the new technologies in the newer releases but it shouldn't affect
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind though: Even if there is no performance i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The integrated graphics in the MacBook and mini do support hardware CoreImage acceleration, although obviously performance won't be as good as with a discrete GPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quartz 2D Extreme (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But given fact #1, that Ars said that Q2DE is basically like running your whole desktop as an OpenGL scene, and fact #2, that Leopard will have "resolution-independent interfaces," I'm betting that Q2DE is fully running and implemented in 10.5.
"Only for the developers" is an oxymoron (Score:2)
Best news for me is Ruby and Python... (Score:2)
Don't forget F-Script (Score:2)
F-Script [fscript.org] is free and open-source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which they realized was a lousy idea because of the large impedance mismatch between Java and ObjC. Java has to know everything at compile time, which makes bridging to other languages a pain; for example you have to explicitly create stubs for every method that could possibly be called. More dynamic languages like Python and Ruby don't have those limitations, and are much easier to support.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple haven't pulled support for writing Cocoa apps in Java with 10.4, however they do discourage it. If you work through the tutorial with XCode 2.4 on Tiger, it still works.
Emphasizing the Wrong Features (Score:3, Interesting)
It is these last two that are of real interest. Individually they are just adding more security features under the hood, which most people will never notice. In that case it is great, but nothing too new. Together, however, they could be the groundwork for just the type malware/spyware defense some security people have been hoping for for years.
Imagine a system where all unsigned code runs in a sandbox by default, without access to any files it does not create, the internet, or any important parts of the system. Realistically, people want to run software they don't trust. They will run it. Most people don't understand the idea of multiple users as a security mechanism. It does not make sense to them that you need to create a new user account to sandbox an application and it is painful from a usability standpoint.
This announcement could be the first indication of the first real, usable desktop that has the benefits of some of the most secure workstations on the planet. Who cares about RoR tools in OS X server?
Re: ????? Link working? (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is clearly that you're using the wrong browser and OS combination. Keep on trying different ones. One of them will get the link to load.
Re: Link working? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A way to do it that doesn't feel kludgy? Excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Developer DVD (Score:2)