Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
WWDC was not about developers this year. It was a conference call with shareholders and investors. No bold moves, just several consecutive "this product will no longer suck" and "look at what you can do now, big companies" announcements.
watchOS will work now (it's too slow ATM). tvOS will just be less cumbersome. macOS still lagging behind (I mean, I already have great third party apps that clean my hard drive, but thank you for solving a problem I didn't need fixing). iOS 10 is simply about messages (it's not going to make me ditch Telegram, because it doesn't have an Android client, regardless of how large you make emoticons appear on screen). Apple Music will still suck, especially if you have more than one Apple ID. And Apple Maps will continue to be useless outside of the US.
Where did the bold moves go? Where's the "we're breaking up iTunes into several distinct apps that serve their purposes really well"? (Guess iTunes is too valuable a trademark...) Where is the "we will end the WKView vs UIView vs NSView nonsense"? (You know, OOP is about creating classes, which are abstractions and whose instances deal with the particularities of their environment; a View is a View, regardless of where they live; an instance of a View should care about being on a watch or on a phone, not the developer.) Where is the "we love indie developers and will help you"? They showed off a lot of integration with well established apps, that don't really need to stand out any more. They showed that video of "normal people" who have developed apps, but no one knows about them! And then they changed the AppStore so you can pay to advertise your app, but who has the means to do that? Indie devs are surely on a tight budget, so who's that helping again?
For me, this WWDC was sugar coated with a "we love you developers" BS, but was a business statement to large companies ("see what you can do now Uber, Lyft, WeChat, WhatsApp, Doordash, all the P2P payment apps, ESPN, WSJ and so on?"). It's already a known fact that the bulk of the AppStore revenue goes to the top 1% apps. And what's the point of having tvOS be open to developers if it is very unlikely I'll ever develop anything for it unless I work at CBS?
It's great that they want to make it easier for kids to learn Swift. But there's very little point in that, if those kids' apps aren't going to be used and are simply going to make the "we have 2 million apps on the AppStore" announcement look shinier for shareholders. Without a strong indie community, the Swift Playgrounds app for the iPad is just manufacturing workers for large corporations.
And without a strong indie community, things get tougher for indie clients as well. Who will have the money (and therefore the time) to implement all those integrations in order to even dream about competing with heavily funded apps?
Yeah... So thanks, Apple, but no thanks.16 -
A new low level language. Modern and clean, like swift or python. Simple syntax and semantics. Low level (non garbage collected, non vm, pointers). I want a new take on C.18
-
When you spent the whole day programming in Swift and your mom says that she fucked up her windows 7 machine and you gotta make a clean install (I hate fixing stupid mistakes made by non tech users)
18 -
If programming languages had honest slogans, what would they be?
C: If you want a horse, make sure you feed it, clean it and secure it yourself. No warranties.
C++: If you want a horse, you need to buy a circus along with it.
Java: Before you buy a horse - buy a piece of land, build a house in that land, build a barn beside the house & if you are not bankrupt yet, buy the horse and then put the horse in the barn.
C#: You don’t want a horse, but Microsoft wants you to have a horse. Now it’s up to you if you want Microsoft or not.
Swift: Don’t buy an overpriced Unicorn if all you wanted was a horse.
JavaScript: If you want to buy a horse & confidently ride it, make sure you read a book named "You don't know horse".
PHP: After enough optimization, your horse can compete the top most horses in the world; but deep down, you'll always know it's an ass.
Hack: Let's face it, even if you take the ass from the ass lovers and give them back a horse in exchange, not many will ride it.
Ruby: If you want a horse, make sure you ride it on top of rail roads, even if the horse can't run fast on rails.
Python: Don't ride your horse and eat your sandwich on the same line, until you indent it on the next line.
Bash: Your horse may shit everywhere, but at least it gets the job done.
R: You are the horse. R will ride you.
Got this from Quora.
https://quora.com/If-programming-la...7 -
Wrote a set of beautiful Swift functions. Runs Xcode, nothing. Checks code...looks good...clean build, delete app, re-install, rebuild...nothing. Checks documentation, watches three videos, re-writes code...nothing. Stares at screen for an hour...realizes I never actually called the functions. Closes laptop, checks self into pysch ward.3
-
I can't stand Swift's initializers. No other languages have the problem with constructors/initializers that Swift does. It's a complete failure of a feature and to hell with safety if it comes with this cost.
Just to illustrate how ridiculous it gets, I want to have a class where my initialization logic can be split among reusable parts. That is, the logic that initializes the class with no parameters has logic that I want to reuse in my other initializers. Simple DRY stuff. Well, the only way I can do that in Swift is if I use a convenience initializer that calls another one. But convenience initializers have completely different rules from designated initializers (again, something only Swift does).
For example, you can't access "self" until you call a designated initializer. You can't chain designated initializers, and if you want to chain anything in the same class you have to handcuff yourself by using a "convenience" initializer (there's nothing convenient about them, I might add).
So now I want to subclass my class and initialize myself using one of my superclass initializers. Oh but the one I want to call is a *convenience* initializer so I can't, unless I turn my new initializer into a convenience initializer. Except wait, a convenience initializer must delegate with self.init(), so it can't even call a superclass initializer!
And it just goes round and round and round. I don't know if I should try to convert all of my initializers to convenience initializers or the other way around.
Why all this nonsensical madness? Get rid of the distinction and go back to nice clean powerful initializers like Objective-C. I mean what does it have to take? This is a complete nightmare.13 -
Spent an entire week working on XCode configurations for a react-native+swift+objc bridging project. Been failing builds all week. Finally i look over to see the glorious word Succeeded!
Then I realized it was the clean that succeeded, not the build. FFS1 -
I have a weird problem ...
There’s an existing swift app, with Apple sign in implemented and working.
When I took over I had to revoke app certificates and create new one. Since then the Apple sign in stopped working.
I’ve tried clean rebuild etc , even tried renewing old profiles with the new cert but nothing is working.
When u do Apple sign in it says “sign up not completed” with no error msg.
Old dev says it happened last time when cert/profile was changed but fixed on proper rebuild. Not fixing for me.
Anybody else faced this?5
Top Tags
Weekly Rant
View