
The iPad Falls Short as a Creation Tool Without Coding Apps - jedwhite
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/03/ipad-creation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
======
mechanical_fish
_This could be a simple tool that creates some rudimentary iOS apps (plenty of
apps in the App Store would be considered subpar anyway), and purchasing it
should include a free developer’s license for kids to get started
programming._

I can't believe this article _quotes Mark Pilgrim_ and yet inexplicably fails
to note the presence of the first-class, top-quality, absolutely free
Javascript runtime that is built into every iPad. No license required, and you
can built more than just _rudimentary_ tablet apps with JS if you are so
inclined. Bonus: They will run on your friends' machines too, even if those
machines don't run iOS.

So this article is just a giant pile of fallacy.

And, yes, if you are a young hacker who has exhausted the possibilities of web
apps and who wants to develop for iOS you will have to spend money. To wit:
you need at least a second-hand Macintosh, and to actually run your apps on a
device you need a $99/year developer subscription.

But how soon we forget that to write first-class apps for, say, the Apple II
also cost money. One reason that I was a lousy Apple II assembly programmer is
that I never owned a real macro assembler [1], because those cost real money:

<http://apple2history.org/history/ah17/#05>

The cheapest commercial assembler in this list, the "four character"
Microproducts Assembler, was "inexpensive at only $39.95" in 1980. But $39.95
in 1980 dollars is $102.67 in 2009 dollars.

I didn't know about that assembler back in 1980. Instead I vaguely knew that
real programmers used Merlin, but I remember Merlin costing _real_ money. I
can't find reference to the original price, but it must have been at least,
say, $75 1980 dollars ($193 in 2009) and might have even been several hundred
dollars ($400+ in 2009).

What I really wanted to use in the 1980s was Pascal. I taught myself Pascal
from a book, circa 1984; I wrote all my code on pieces of paper and never
executed it because it was another two years before I got my hands on my first
Pascal compiler. The Apple Pascal compiler cost hundreds of dollars. It came
out in 1979 at $495. ($1443.88 in 2009 dollars). No way I was going to afford
_that_.

Of course, eventually we were all saved when Turbo Pascal came out, and later
Turbo C. Turbo Pascal 1.0 was legendary for being inexpensive and accessible:
It was only $54.95 (with shipping) in 1984. Of course, that's $112 in 2009
dollars. And you needed to own an IBM PC or a CP/M machine, which I did not,
and which could not be bought on Craigslist for a few hundred (2009) bucks the
way a second-hand Intel Macintosh can.

Of course, you could pirate Turbo Pascal. If you could find someone else who
owned it and was willing to give it to you. In the days before broadband and
BitTorrent that was much more difficult: You had to learn about BBSes, and
about such esoteric concepts as _leeching_ , and you had to learn to live
without the documentation.

The scrounging process is now much easier. Obviously, "piracy" is now simple
and fun, but you needn't even resort to that: You can scrounge everything you
need for iOS development legally and fairly easily -- schools own Macs,
libraries own Macs, xCode can be downloaded for five bucks, and the docs are
all free and legal, and even the emulator is free. The only thing you can't
fudge is the $99 license to install your apps. But you can find one friend or
teacher who has the license and convince them to install your app for you,
legally. If there's popular demand for school libraries to own iOS developer
licenses we could easily start a charity to donate some.

\---

[1] Though this is just the least embarrassing reason, not the most
significant reason.

~~~
saurik
I'm sorry, but you seem to be responding to a strawman. No one is claiming you
can't make apps that target an iPad: they are saying there is no rudimentary
way to make apps USING an iPad.

The original comment was that people don't need Macs anymore: that kids can
just have an iPad. This article claims that that overlooks the importance of
programming.

Meanwhile, the points in the article are both about a lack of a development
environment /and/ that the input mechanisms available aren't even appropriate
for the task.

You can disagree with those points if you want, but you can't just claim
"dude: JavaScript", and believe you won some battle. Yeah: there's
JavaScript... now what? Can I edit HTML files on the device and load them? No.

An argument you /could/ try to make is that anyone can get an account on EC2
and then use iSSH from the App Store and the bluetooth keyboard to do
development, attempting (painfully) to task switch between a browser that
barely has a memory cache (and has no disk cache) and an SSH client that is
killed if you leave it in the background for longer than a minute. Of course,
that's all assuming you manage to get your EC2 server bootstrapped using the
web console, which I think might actually be a flash app... I guess there are
other hosting companies, right?

~~~
shawndumas
"JavaScript Anywhere"[1] is a simple & portable development environment for
Web Programmer.

\----

[1]: [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/javascript-
anywhere/id3634522...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/javascript-
anywhere/id363452277?mt=8)

------
bradleyland
You can't create a guitar with a guitar either. Programming is only one type
of creation, and not every computing device _must_ support programming. The
mindset that "computers are for computing" is holding the industry back.

The author makes the argument that if you can't create applications for the
iPad with the iPad, youth will experience a disincentive to build programs. I
posit two things:

A) That disincentive is offset by the appeal of the iOS platform and the
"magic" of a solid touch platform (hardware and software)

B) Not every musician wants to make their own instrument

The author also holds up the rejection of Scratch as proof of his other
arguments. I view applications like Scratch as a distinct issue, separate from
"professional" application tools on iOS. I understand why Apple doesn't want
to allow tools like Scratch -- because they don't want to create loopholes --
but I do find it disappointing that they don't make an exception for
educational products. I've not seen a computing device that reaches kids like
the iPad does, and it would be great if we could at least introduce them to
the concept directly on the iPad.

I believe there is a big opportunity here for web app developers to fill a
void. Take a look at CoffeeScript. If someone can re-package Javascript in a
way that resembles Ruby, I don't see why that template couldn't be pushed
further.

~~~
brudgers
The issue with client side Javascript is that innovative code cannot be
effectively kept private.

~~~
bradleyland
This is the case for every website you visit, yet it doesn't seem to be a
problem. Technology people often make the mistake of believing that the
technology is the product. I believe we've passed the time in computing where
that is a requirement. Anyone can grab a text editor and hammer out some code.
What makes a product great is the confluence of all the factors that you can't
write in code. The application is part of the equation. I'm not arguing that
the code can be bad; I'm arguing that you need more.

For example, GitHub is driven by git. This is a tool that anyone can download
and use. The entire GitHub interface is HTML/JS. I could run through and rip
off every bit of their interface code and I'd be a large portion of the way
toward running my own GitHub. There's the issue of the server-side code and
scalability, but these are problems I can solve with a reasonable up-front
investment and iterative problem-solving, just like everyone else. What I
_can't_ clone is the community and spirit of GitHub.

If the success of your organization relies on the inability of your
competitors to copy your product, you have a much bigger problem.

~~~
brudgers
The argument is that the javascript development is a reasonable substitute for
native programming - and in terms of protecting trade secrets it is not.

------
tomelders
"As a professional Final Cut Pro videomaker myself, I was personally
frustrated that Apple kept making it easier and easier for anyone to replicate
my technical skills with much simpler tools."

Sounds like something a tosser would say if you ask me.

~~~
regularfry
It's definitely something a Luddite would say.

~~~
regularfry
Why the downvotes? The Luddites were skilled artisans objecting to advances in
technology taking their jobs away. Doesn't that sound in the _least_ bit
familiar here?

------
joelackner
i downloaded tubotax for my ipad, fired it up, realized how much data input
i'd be doing and how much of a chore it would be and headed for my desktop...

it's all about the right tools for the job, and i still believe that the ipad
is best used for consuming.

programming is inherently a lot of typing, scrolling and adjusting. unless you
hook up a real keyboard and/or a mouse or invent some damn elegant ui
paradigms ... i'm just not seeing this being a strong tool in the programmers
toolkit. reviewing code, perhaps? but the daily grind, not so much. at least
not in the near future...

------
edtechdev
This problem probably won't be solved by Apple, but it will be solved by
others who are working on browser-based IDEs right now.

There are several browser-based programming sites such as
<http://www.playmycode.com/>, cloud9, <http://jsdo.it>, jsfiddle, etc. Even
Eclipse is coming out with a browser-based version soon (project orion). Now,
some of these don't work on mobile or tablet devices yet (broken
contenteditable in the browser), but they will. See for example the codemirror
2 editor, which does work on an ipad, albeit not perfectly:
<http://codemirror.net/2/>

A related issue is what the author talks about - it's harder and slower to
type on an ipad or smart phone than a device with a regular keyboard. I don't
know of a solution to that yet. Perhaps it will involve better touch-driven
keyboards (sort of like swype and related options - but tailored for
programming), or perhaps using voice or the camera (gesture recognition) for
input, or perhaps we'll just adapt and get used to the current on screen
keyboards - kids aren't really complaining about them, and are pretty fast at
using them, but there's a difference between typing a text message and
programming with all the special symbols and indenting used (a pain without a
regular keyboard). Or perhaps more scratch-like programming environments will
gain popularity (program by dragging and dropping blocks instead of typing).
See my post:
[http://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/contentnoteditable...](http://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/contentnoteditable-
what-the-death-of-the-mouse-and-keyboard-mean-for-content-creators/)

------
extension
Kids will be growing up with desktop computers for a long time to come, and
now they have a fun and lucrative platform they can write programs for. It's a
great time to be a budding hacker.

That said, a sort of elementary tool to make toy apps or games on the iPad
would be a good gateway drug.

------
callumjones
I'm quite lucky to be working with and developing on Apple hardware because
while I paid for my MacBook, iPhone, iPad and ADC account my parents were
paying for my access to university and I live with my parents.

But a lot of people don't have that, I hope Apple follows the line of MSDN
Academic Alliance and partners with all walks of educational institutions to
open up the Apple development platform to students for free. I don't mean give
them a free iPad but give them Xcode 4 and a non-commercial ADC license for
free.

With the continued growth of Apple Stores maybe they could run introduction to
the Objective C and Cocoa frameworks for those who wouldn't normally have
access to it?

------
trustfundbaby
Dear programmer.

You are not the ipad's target demographic.

The end.

~~~
trustfundbaby
Its like a sports car enthusiast getting into a generic 'coupe' with an
Automatic gearbox and whining about the lack of a stick shift.

It just doesn't make any sense, and these kinds of posts show that our
community really doesn't understand exactly why the ipad is the success that
it is.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Approving Scratch would've killed the iPad? Are you serious?

Apple is worried that Netflix or Amazon will stream movies and ebooks through
Scracth Apps and bypass the 30% cut or what?

------
bryanp_
Can't you just use a remote desktop app if you want to program using your
ipad?

~~~
tomelders
Can't you just record a movie of yourself dictating your code line by line to
camera and email that to India where it can be transcribed into XCode for you?

