Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And BTW, does tossing out the word "kool-aid" somehow magically give one the upper hand in discussions around here?

It's a very powerful word a long with "fanboy" ... so powerful it can win you an argument in one sentence.
 
Yes, very few people use objective C outside of apple platforms. It's a shame, really - I programmed C++ for years - millions of lines of it. I learned Objective C only a few years ago, but now I greatly prefer it.

Admittedly I know very little about Objective C, but I have an impression that people are starting to use it more not because they like it but because they have to. The language was available from 1986 (including support from open source compilers) and it went nowhere until iPhone showed up. This contrasts very much with the story of languages that people do like - languages like C, C++, Java, Python and even Perl (which I personally hate :)). The story of Objective C reminds more of the stories of other niche languages (functional languages - Haskell, Scheme etc. Smalltalk variety of object oriented languages and so on). BTW, you mentioned the use of named arguments as one advantage of Objective C. It think this is one has become rather irrelevant these days. In a well written code, the names of variables and constants provide all information you need anyways but more importantly when you use modern development tools (like Visual Studio) they provide instant information about all object methods and their parameters. They even auto-complete the stuff you type :)

C# is practically dead outside Windows...

There are a few Mono and GNUStep projects out there. But the quality is crap and decent projects are as rare as naturally found flawless diamonds.

That's irrelevant.

So the fact that there are probably more people using C# than people using all other languages combined is irrelevant? There is not that much going on outside Windows these days in general (mobile platforms obviously are changing the situation somewhat but a lot of development there is very amateurish so the real numbers are hard to come by).
 
I agree with Steve. The industry really needs to be moving away from Flash and he is giving it a subtle push in that direction. People have really misunderstood what the argument is all about. The web is completely viable in a world without Flash which is a proprietary free web plugin mostly used for web advertising. You do not need it for video, you do not need it for games. It is simply a free browser plugin. People don't normally chose to use it but very often it gets preinstalled by the pc manufacturers. Also since alot of websites have relied on ad banners to make money over the last several years, they appear to be 'broken' when flash is not installed on the browser. It is almost like choosing to watch commercials or choosing to have a root canal. Its not exactly pleasurable and you probably wouldn't do it if you didn't have to. And with HTML 5, we are closer to this. If you argue that you want choice, you should be choosing to use HTML 5 whenever possible.
 
I agree with Steve. The industry really needs to be moving away from Flash and he is giving it a subtle push in that direction. People have really misunderstood what the argument is all about. The web is completely viable in a world without Flash which is a proprietary free web plugin mostly used for web advertising. You do not need it for video, you do not need it for games. It is simply a free browser plugin. People don't normally chose to use it but very often it gets preinstalled by the pc manufacturers. Also since alot of websites have relied on ad banners to make money over the last several years, they appear to be 'broken' when flash is not installed on the browser. It is almost like choosing to watch commercials or choosing to have a root canal. Its not exactly pleasurable and you probably wouldn't do it if you didn't have to. And with HTML 5, we are closer to this. If you argue that you want choice, you should be choosing to use HTML 5 whenever possible.

I'd rather have a broken flash than having a HTML5 Ad.
 
Has anyone mentioned yet the following related change on the web?

I've said for a long time that if Jobs wants to push HTML5, then he needs to help get his buddies at Disney to switch from being totally based on Flash.

I went to Disney.com on my iPod touch... and hello!

Disney has created what appears to be an iPhone oriented website without Flash.

How long has that been there?
 
because obstrusive ads (videos) automatically gain your attention.

So your reason for preferring flash is because it is more annoying and attracts attention. Do you make a living with annoying flash ads.

Because otherwise that is a fairly bizarre reason.
 
So your reason for preferring flash is because it is more annoying and attracts attention. Do you make a living with annoying flash ads.

Because otherwise that is a fairly bizarre reason.

Flash adverts just don't attract my attention. Part of my earnings come from the advertisement industry.
 
Well, flash advertiser with a clear bias like that, I think I safely ignore your input to the discussion.

He may simply have ads in his apps - not necessarily an advertiser. And his bias is no worse than the bias of someone who wants free stuff with no ads.

We all have biases.
 
I didn't finish - as a publisher. My users seem not to have any issues with the ads, even Flash ones.

Perhaps because they do as I do and block flash (you have know way of knowing because flashblock still loads the content, it just hides it).

Perhaps I should have guessed from your annoying multi-color sig that you were a flash advertiser. Anyway sick of seeing your annoying sig, so to ignore you go, blocked, just like I block annoying flash.
 
PeterQVenkman said:
Finally, an honest, realistic, and knowledgeable stance on Steve's open letter to those who drink his kool-aid. And it won't get any media traction, despite this guy being totally right.

I highly doubt Jon Gruber is going to cover that post unless he incorrectly disagrees with it. He's basically just a bullhorn for Steve Jobs now.

That was nothing but a freetard rant. And gruber did respond.

Jobs never said H.264 was a “free” standard. He said it was an open standard. Not all open standards are free.

Sullivan is more or less arguing the FSF party line, that both Apple and Adobe are unethical because both are promoting things that aren’t free-as-in-freedom. That’s great. So what mobile phone should an FSF devotee buy? Good luck with that.

 
Interesting.

It's a well thought out, very well cohesive document that clearly states apple's position and why. Too bad it took them this long to actually get this going, it probably would cause less angst, especially after Job's off the cuff remark about adobe being lazy.

Ironic. Apple was lazy in borrowing open source (FreeBSD) to be the core of OS X. They wouldn't even buy BeOS, a platform that - at the time - mopped the floor with Windows and Linux. I know, I was an early adopter and was crushed when Be went under... :(

Though when I say the old line about casting stones, I'm not perfect either...
 
There's only one browser that has anything resembling HTML 5.0 support: Google Chrome 4.x and later. And it does work: you need it to run Google Wave.

And HTML5 isn't even a proper standard yet. It'll become de facto, but how all the browser developers end up "tweaking" it for their benefit remains to be seen.
 
Can't block html5 :). (yet)

:) Luckily, html5 ads aren't very popular yet, so we have some time for blocking tools can be developed. Theoretically, we should have much better control over html5 content than we do with Flash content.

But that doesn't seem to be ct2k7's point.
 
Perhaps because they do as I do and block flash (you have know way of knowing because flashblock still loads the content, it just hides it).

Perhaps I should have guessed from your annoying multi-color sig that you were a flash advertiser. Anyway sick of seeing your annoying sig, so to ignore you go, blocked, just like I block annoying flash.

Lemme guess - you also don't want to pay for content either. Ad supported sites provide the content that you consume, the least you could do is give them the courtesy of counting you in as an ad impression, even if you don't click-thru. Do you also use cracked software?
 
Lemme guess - you also don't want to pay for content either. Ad supported sites provide the content that you consume, the least you could do is give them the courtesy of counting you in as an ad impression, even if you don't click-thru. Do you also use cracked software?

While I understand your point, flash ads slow down or cause stuttering in at least my system, and sometimes crash my browser. I'm happy to look at ads that behave, but by using Flash, advertisers are asking to be blocked, at least on my system. I would never use an ad blocker, but I do block Flash.
 
Perhaps because they do as I do and block flash (you have know way of knowing because flashblock still loads the content, it just hides it).

Perhaps I should have guessed from your annoying multi-color sig that you were a flash advertiser. Anyway sick of seeing your annoying sig, so to ignore you go, blocked, just like I block annoying flash.

The stats don't seem to suggest so - however, what I continuously do is generate stats from Mac users to correlate information about the ads and the Flash ads. So far, I've reduced the Flash to normal ad ration for Mac users - the advertiser's anger.

The question was why do you prefer broken flash to having an html5 ad? Both can be equally obtrusive or unobtrusive.

Can't block html5 :). (yet)

:) Luckily, html5 ads aren't very popular yet, so we have some time for blocking tools can be developed. Theoretically, we should have much better control over html5 content than we do with Flash content.

But that doesn't seem to be ct2k7's point.

This.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.