|
Congratulations, and (possibly) deep sympathies !
cheers, Bill
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Bill, always some tongue in cheek words coming from ya!  
|
|
|
|
|
MS's rules for store apps (Linkety[^])state that:
"Your app must not attempt to change or extend the packaged content through any form of dynamic inclusion of code that changes how the application behaves with regard to Store certification requirements. Your app should not, for example, download a remote script and subsequently execute that script in the local context of the app package."
On my phone, I have Microsoft TouchDevelop, an app specifically designed for sharing, downloading and executing remote scripts. I have no problem with this, especially in the context of TouchDevelop, which is a great environment for experimenting with development (my 11 year old uses it), but doesn't in seem unreasonable (and anti-competitive) that noone else can develop such apps.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's the kind of confusion between direct interpretations of the text versus purpose of the text (and I really don't know if it needs to be revised).
The purpose is clear: The application should come fully functional from the store. It can't be an application that comes in half and loads the other half from somewhere else.
Yet, for an application that deals with creating new applications, it is like an image editor that loads images. It is not that part of the application itself is coming from somewhere else... its actual content for the application... in this case it happens to be a script (or similar, as I don't know the application). But it is clearly not part of the application coming from somewhere else.
So, I don't know... to me it doesn't violate the rules. Maybe it violates the example. But I don't know how strict these terms must be interpreted under the law, so... I simply don't know and I can see both interpretations as valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait...are you trolling me? Because, if you are, I'm not responding.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I be "hatin'" ?
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: Why would I be "hatin'" ?
Exactly. Bill Gates built the world (Windows OS) we work in. So all sound-minded individuals are 100% happy he is the richest person in the world. 
And, anyone else, don't be acting like you are running Linux or some other OS. That's all just lies, because it still isn't:
THe Year of the Linux Desktop
That's not for another 5 or 6 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget about Ballmer and Allen... MSFT has generated a tremendous amount of wealth.
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Errm, I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people built the Windows OS. In fact, the core NT based version was written by a team that came in from VMS and NT went on to underpin a lot of what we now know as Windows. As for those of us who still use Linux systems, Bill had very little to do with it.
So, while I still love coding Windows applications, I love it when people are accurate with their facts. The pedant in me gets upset when people play fast and loose like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: lot of other people built the Windows OS
No, no. Bill wrote Windows 3.1 by himself while bouncing on his trampoline.
Then, later, some guy copied his code and slapped a new name on it: Voila Linux!
I have my facts straight, according to certain Internet sites. 
|
|
|
|
|
And those sites call Windows 3.1 an OS?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: And those sites call Windows 3.1 an OS?
You have broken the rules are are now banned from CP.
I told you not to be hatin'!!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I'm not hating on Bill. I like Bill.
Your blatant disregard of historical facts however....
|
|
|
|
|
Historical shmistorical... History is all made up as time goes along anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
"Always in motion is the past." -- Yoda
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: "Always in motion is the past."
Is that really a Yoda quote. If it is, +500 lifepoints for great reference.
If it isn't, +1,000 lifepoints for the creativity of simulating such a realistic Yoda quote.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought he did that while on a plane?!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The pedant in me
Pete, we're professional pedants. A programmer who is not a pedant should stop and go sell time shares or something!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people built the Windows OS
Yes but, Bill Gates is substantially responsible for
- Insuring that Windows went forward (his reasons, probably fear, doesn't alter his push.)
- Building Microsoft itself.
- And finally, and most importantly, the mistake by IBM in terms of licensing PC-DOS and then Bill Gates taking advantage of that.
Seems likely that without any of those then world right now would be have a more fragmented market and because of that less volume of usage of software. There would have, of course, been competition between platforms. But that same competition would have reduced the marketplace for applications.
|
|
|
|
|
What's to hate?
He's living proof that the American Dream can work for 0.0000001% of the population.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: 0.0000001% of the population
I wish you hadn't used % symbol here because now I'm have to convert the value to decimal...
Let's see...
0.0000001% is 0.000000001
There, that's much easier to read. 
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer hex.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, a hex on all things Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
