Hacker News Reader

Comment by lispm | Hacker News Reader

I'm not talking about programming on the Mac, I'm talking about the iPhone OS and devices like the iPad.

I need a Mac to program the iPad? Why?

We needed a LISA to program the Mac in 1984. The Mac had 128kbyte of RAM and couldn't do much.

The iPad has 256MB RAM, a multitasking OS based on Unix - I want to see end-user programming on the touch screen. Not a generation of link clickers.

We have 2010.

I want a better EMAIL program for my iPhone (or something like the iPad). I don't get it. Apple does not allow that. WHY? It can't even filter mails. We had that twenty years ago.

View on HN

"I need a Mac to program th iPad. Why?"

Holy moly! Are you mad because a TV isn't a video camera? Are you mad because a plate isn't a frying pan?

The iPad is a consumption device. It's a new thing. I've had it for a week now. I know that it's not going to replace a real computer. But it is absoulutely great for what it is. I wouldn't want to program on it (as things stand). It's acceptable for writing short texts, that's about it for now.

And this has nothing to do with the 3.3.1 controversy. There are a number of things that you can take Apple to task for, but this isn't one of them.

"I wouldn't want to program on it (as things stand). It's acceptable for writing short texts, that's about it for now."

There seems to be an presupposition there that programming must involve lots of typing. If so, it is a false one.

I haven't seen a good 5th generation language that does visual programming well yet. Even the wonderful morphic libraries on Squeak or the ALICE virtual world still require lots of typing.

Why did the goal posts for my point in the conversation suddenly get moved to 5GL? That feels like a bit of a disingenuous reply.

Making a traditional TV in to a video camera would require adding hardware (capture, storage) at significant cost. Incidentally, Apple did turn the TV in to a video camera[0].

Turning the iPad in to a platform where children could explore programming with Squeak, eToys or some as-yet unreleased environment would only require that Apple not actively prevent it.

[0] http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/

Technically, yes you can have a better mail program. You just might not be approved to sell it once you create it using XCode. If you are serious about this, start with reMail. reMail has implemented a lot of features and solved a lot of thorny email client implementation issues.

"As someone who is passionate about mobile email, my hope is that developers interested in making email-related apps can use reMail code as a starting point. Part of the reason email apps are hard is because you have to pay the tax of figuring out how to download email via IMAP, parse MIME messages, handle attachments, and store data. reMail has already solved these problems. If you have a great mobile email idea, I hope you will find reMail's source code helpful in your quest."

http://www.remail.com/blog/

http://code.google.com/p/remail-iphone

http://gizmodo.com/5053232/apple-rejects-mailwrangler-app-fo...

'… Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion. …'

Twenty years ago you did not have a handheld device that read your emails.

Depends what you call a handheld device. The Osborne-1 from 1981, one of the first portable computers had an email program. Handheld computers started in the early 90s and some had email capabilities. For Apple's own Newton there was a bunch of email clients.

"I need a Mac to program the iPad? Why?"

You need a computer to transfer data to it, so why not to program it? Yes, the toolchain is not available for windows, but that's at least understandable. The iPad is not currently marketed as a stand-alone device.

From what I can tell, you MUST connect it to iTunes before it even allows you pass the "Connect me to iTunes on your computer" screen. I thought it was unneeded and should have had a "remind me later" at the very least (I didn't buy one, just set one up). Regardless, almost anyone that wants an iPad will have a computer - and the benefit of having a "import everything" option is huge.

You are a very small minority.

You are in a very small minority... of people who get it.

I have nothing against consumer electronics devices, but they're about consuming. The promise of computers is in creation.

Steve Jobs took Alan Kay's work, but not his ideas. The promise of the Dynabook isn't about hardware, but a change in how we create software. That change is coming, and that's the change to get excited about.

You're not presenting any amount of believable evidence here to prove your point. Your quip of "You don't get it!" doesn't pass the muster.

Yes, computers promise creation. But this creation isn't always developing software. A device can simply create entertainment.

I hate to break it to you, buddy, but you've become saturated in your community. It's very hard from that point to see how very small your pool is.

A device can simply create entertainment. No, a device shows entertainment. And people consume it. Creation means that the end user has something new when they're done. Not that they've just passed the time.

And you're ad hominem attack on being saturated in your community was most likely a projection, buddy.

You don't need a Mac. You can write web apps for it on any platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com