Jim Lawrence
accessd at shaw.ca
Wed Sep 19 11:35:43 CDT 2012
Hi Shamil:
Just some clarification here first: Apple is not a software company, it is a
hardware company. Even the core to Apple PCs are borrowed from OpenBSD (OSS
Unix/Linux) software...it is more like any other Linux distro.
You are right that fixed dictated standards are restricting but the phrase
is OPEN standards. These are not hard and fast but they are agreements
within the entire industry.
Just like electricity coming to your house. If every supplier put their own
standard on the delivery, cycles, power-levels etc, no one would be able to
trust the functionality of their equipment. Right now there are four major
electric standards in the world, each has different set of plugs but there
are universal transformers so I know my laptop will work whether I am in
Canada/US, in Europe/Russia, Britain (they are weird ;-)) or in Japan/China.
The computer industry, by necessity is the same thing.
I think in this industry a developer, starting out, has to first have and
keep a solid background in the Open Standards products...that for the most
cases will be their "bread and butter"...the long-term meal ticket. Then and
only then a developer should specialize...realizing of course that all
proprietary languages on custom platforms have a relative short lifespan and
the technology could get dumped at a moments notice.
Case in point: I know more dead-languages than live ones. I used to be a SCO
senior product re-seller and a CNE (Certified Novell Engineer) but we all
know what happened to SCO and Novell when the OSS product, Linux hit the
market. Access is not dead but can you imagine where it would be at if it
was a OSS product and not being restricted by the whims of the owner.
In summary; Open Standards and the associated Open Source products offer
greater diversity and opportunities in the long term. Proprietary software
may offer fast larger profits but they are short-term...ten years maximum
generally less. As long as you balance those facts, what ever development
environment you decide on and what level of risk you are most comfortable
with will work.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Salakhetdinov
Shamil
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:37 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] HTML5 mobile-friendly web sites vs. native mobile
apps - Was:Re: Bootcamp or Paralells - was RE: OT: iPhone/iPaddevelopment on
an MS Windows PC - noway?
Hi Jim --
Standardization is an "enemy" of innovation. (No pun intended).
Look at what Apple is doing - they are "breaking" standards "as crazy".
(Last news - they are becoming proprietary chip-maker
- http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/18/the-iphone-5s-greatest-inside-story-chipm
aking-maturation-for-apple/ )
<<<
The new young developers are looking for Open standards so in fifty years
they will still be working
>>>
I'd say "open end" standards - common communication interfaces, APIs, ... -
open for consumption and extension.
But programming languages are a "special story" IMO.
More like natural languages, cultures - they tend to "borrow & adapt" each
other words/features/habits/cuisines/... but in the same time preserve and
develop there own intrinsic features - or die.
<<<
" XAML and SilverLight " are the latest of a long list of proprietary coding
efforts and are not universally accepted or are not likely to be so. Most
browser are not IE and every year the percentage number of IE browser get
less.
>>>
I meant that XAML and SilverLight are used to develop Windows Phone native
applications, as ObjectiveC is used to develop native iPhone/iPad apps and
Android Development Kit/Java is used to develop Android native apps.
Of course "there is no “right answer” between native and mobile web
applications other than the right answer for a particular application based
on its design, functionality and business
plan": http://blog.cloudfour.com/the-five-most-common-arguments-for-native-i
phone-development/ ...
Generalized Recap:
I'm voting/looking for the open standards, free competition and this world
without confines but I'm also for diversity and I'm not for standardized
faceless crowd...
Thank you.
--Shamil
P.S. Free competition does require "fair rules" and "fair arbiters" - no
illusions here - now and very probably forever...