Re: [OT] .Net goes Open Source
Re: [OT] .Net goes Open Source
- Subject: Re: [OT] .Net goes Open Source
- From: OC <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 08:55:17 +0100
On 5. 2. 2015, at 7:14, Troy Lumasag <email@hidden> wrote:
> What really are the problems - direct, impending or long term problems being as it is now?
> I can recall these stated problems if I understood it correct:
0. no ObjC support. To get at least a remotely similar productivity, I've successfully managed to use Groovy with WO, but still it is a royal PITA; whilst Groovy is worlds better than Java, it's still far from ObjC.
> 1. porting issues(moving to future java versions)
> 2. single-threaded editing context <- Must be a bottleneck problem for multiple instance setup?
3. weird bugs the source of which it is quite difficult to find, without having an access to sources (or a support who has). I'm still rather anxious about the Case of Mysteriously Deleted EOs, see http://prod.lists.apple.com/archives/webobjects-dev/2014/Nov/msg00163.html
> Sorry if I'm being naive on my question haha
>
> --Troy
>
> On 2/5/2015 11:55 AM, Timothy Worman wrote:
>> WebObjects is one of Apple’s weapons - it helps them be fluid and quick - especially with the devs they have. Maybe open sourcing WO seems threatening because it is a internal business advantage.
>>
>> Tim Worman
>> UCLA GSE&IS
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 4:59 PM, OC <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5. 2. 2015, at 1:42, Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Apple cares about money, not us.
>>> Oh, absolutely! Given the zilliards Apple charges for WebObjects licences... oh, wait.
>>>
>>> Actually I just don't get it -- for long long years I don't get it at all.
>>>
>>> (i) first, they seriously cripple the world's best web application framework by cutting out the ObjC support, leaving it Java-only, and thus half-unusable.
>>>
>>> (ii) then they stop bundling it.
>>>
>>> (iii) then they stop supporting it at all.
>>>
>>> All right, I can see after (i) they could hardly charge any money for licencing, whilst the support price would skyrocket; but why on earth not put it to open source at the same moment?!?
>>>
>>> The same company who is known to put _lots_ of pretty interesting things to public (see Darwin).
>>>
>>> Oh, sigh.
>>>
>>> About the only (dumb and conspirational) theory I can think of is that were the sources open, hacking App Store would get the usual 'varsity freaks pastime :)
>>>
>>>> - hugi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2015/02/03/coreclr-is-now-open-source.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> The github is here
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s a shame Apple never did the same with WO.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>
>>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>
>>> This email sent to email@hidden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden