Teeth Grinding or . . .

[richmond62]

https://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.p ... 09#p232109

including that building iOS
standalones no longer requires a specific version of Xcode or iOS SDK!

And what about Android?

[tperry2x]

You didn't care about Mobile build targets before.

Personally I would suggest that OXT DROPS the mobile builds...

Anyway,...
If they've done away with needing xCode (and therefore - in theory) the requirement for needing a mac to be able to produce iOS apps - this means that iOS apps can be constructed on Windows and Linux versions of LC now.
That's great - it must mean they've abstracted parts away from xCode to do this (the runtime compiler) - and like Mac-Arm engine development, this is where OXT won't be able to catch up. - We have no engine-centric build team.

But then, that's not surprising given that we don't have anything to attract a C++ engine coder to pick up the mishmash of parts and make us a new engine. C++ development takes time, and therefore usually money. (Not many people are going to do development for free and give up a sizeable chunk of their spare time for nothing, after all).

It might be a bit of a moot point anyway, as Apple don't allow submission of these LC/OXT built apps on their app stores. (You need to submit xCode projects for inspection) - or did, unless they've recently changed that. As far as side-loading apps onto iOS, it was prohibitively difficult for end users to do this (again, unless they've changed that recently too?)

So as much of an achievement this is, I don't see how it allows people to get their LC-App-created content into Apple's app stores (which surely most developers would want to do?).

With Google Play, Android - you just submit the apk for inspection, and they may well indeed accept it. Of course, with Android it's a lot easier to install from outside the Google Play app store.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

You didn't care about Mobile build targets before.

Personally I would suggest that OXT DROPS the mobile builds...

It might be a bit of a moot point anyway, as Apple don't allow submission of these LC/OXT built apps on their app stores. (You need to submit xCode projects for inspection) - or did,

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, surely there are commercial iOS apps that have been built with LC that have been available in the App Store, so they must have been approved by Apple.

If you have a free Apple developer account you can install something like 2 or 3 self-signed apps on your iOS device, but they expire in 3 or 5 days (I forget, it's been a while since I've tried it). If you have a paid Apple developer account, I believe you can have many more self-signed installed for much longer. That still costs $99 per year last I checked.

unless they've recently changed that. As far as side-loading apps onto iOS, it was prohibitively difficult for end users to do this (again, unless they've changed that recently too?)

So as much of an achievement this is, I don't see how it allows people to get their LC-App-created content into Apple's app stores (which surely most developers would want to do?).

With Google Play, Android - you just submit the apk for inspection, and they may well indeed accept it. Of course, with Android it's a lot easier to install from outside the Google Play app store.

I wonder if there could be changes related to EU court judgments that have come down on Apple for their anticompetitive practices. I had been hopeful that meant that they would be allowing 'Just In Time' compiling code sort of things (ya know like scripting engines) to run on iOS. I think I was being overly hopeful, but at least there's emulators on there now (finally) so we can run another OS under emulation on these things, although I've heard the performance of some emulations is severely impacted by Apple's banning app use of J.I.T. compilation.

[tperry2x]

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, surely there are commercial iOS apps that have been built with LC that have been available in the App Store, so they must have been approved by Apple.

This is it, I'm not sure. Do we know of any?

[OpenXTalkPaul]

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, surely there are commercial iOS apps that have been built with LC that have been available in the App Store, so they must have been approved by Apple.

This is it, I'm not sure. Do we know of any?

Yes, I've seen a few (and they looked like they were too) that were on there for sale, were probably built with LC Commercial version. I doubt there''s all that many, but I know there have been.

[tperry2x]

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/587 ... n-iphone-m

As a further development, LiveCode iOS apps built with the forthcoming open source licensed LiveCode will not be allowed in the App Store because of licensing issues. Apps developed with the commercial license (paid) LiveCode will still be accepted.

So Apple won't accept stuff made with the open source version. That was my understanding of the situation too. You can make something for use by yourself, like a hobbyist project or even something for use inside a company internally, but you can't distribute that externally outside of it - so no app store publishing.

[richmond62]

Surely you can release your iOS thing via a website and ot can then be downloaded and installed: the way I installed the Onitama APK on my Android phone.

[richmond62]

I suggested dropping the mobile builds because there were just too many hoops to jump through.

If, however, we could do what LC have done . . .

[tperry2x]

Surely you can release your iOS thing via a website and ot can then be downloaded and installed: the way I installed the Onitama APK on my Android phone.

Wouldn't that be nice. Sadly no. That's why Android exists.

[richmond62]

So: prawns go and pay the earth for an iPhone for what?
Pose value?

I have just got back to my copy of volume 1 of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha to reread the books of Enoch (useful for getting a handle on what makes Ethiopian Israelites and Christians tick), and note the book has about 50 slips of paper in it (I bought the book in 1985), and I chose not to write in the book itself (which was my choice). Now anything I OWN should be capable of being treated the way I want to treat it . . . so iOS . . . is a load of old bollo: buy me and then find your are nailed to the floor.

[richmond62]

Like many, many things from "over there"; not all that it is cracked up to be:

However, note that to build an iOS standalone for **device** you do NOT have to select an Xcode version in the Mobile prefs,
you just have to ensure that any version of Xcode >= 12.4 is installed in the system.

[tperry2x]

Hang on then, so one minute it's:

- LiveCode 10.0.1 RC-1 comes with 16 additional new features and bugfixes, including that building iOS
standalones no longer requires a specific version of Xcode or iOS SDK!

[emphasis mine]
Then, the next it's:

...you just have to ensure that any version of Xcode >= 12.4 is installed in the system

Contradictory statement on the same page.

This isn't LC-bashing. This is factual, for anyone to see. I'm merely echoing what's there in black and white.

I was wondering how they accomplished this without the use of xCode. Short answer: it was not accomplished. Which means you still can't build iOS apps on Linux or Windows, for the simple fact that xCode isn't available on Linux or Windows.

(Not that I should worry: it means little, or nothing, to our project 'over here' of course).
I honestly feel that the only thing that's happening 'over there' is confusion - which has a knock-on effect with our project when we have to say it is based on Livecode. I almost don't want that association right now, but there's no getting away from that at the moment.

[richmond62]

based on Livecode

Our project is NOT based on LiveCode as it is at the moment: it is based on LiveCode at a certain point of departure.

This needs to be made EXPLICITLY clear as LiveCode seems to be going into some sort of 'death cycle' (well, at least re what I think of as LiveCode) which must not suck us down.

I am sure the "good" people at LiveCode will be only too happy if we make the point that our code and LiveCode's diverged nearly 3 years ago.
-

Screenshot 2024-10-11 at 19.09.36.png (56.18 KiB) Viewed 778 times

-
A fairly short arm if truth be known.

a small but significant enhancement for all iOS users

Not quite as significant as naive types like me first thought: or, was I naive, or did I just take the initial announcement at face value before the inevitable qualification was posted ONLY after someone queried something?

Re 'Teeth Grinding': I am glad have a good dentist here, and don't have to go to the LiveCode offices for my dentistry . . . LOL

[tperry2x]

Our project is NOT based on LiveCode as it is at the moment: it is based on LiveCode at a certain point of departure.

Yes, I know what you mean - I've modified my comment, because that did sound like LC bashing.