|
they know what the score is 
|
|
|
|
|
An iMac is the best choice: a big monitor and best performance. There different models (speed and HD), but for real programming you need 16 GB RAM. The IDE for Apple XCode is for free, but you need some (paid) developer account.
I have the iPad pro (12 inch) and iPhone 6+ because of the performance and screen size.
Watch the videos of the WWDC. The videos from earlier years are also online.
I would start new projects in Swift. You can mix Swift projects with Objective-C (and with C code)
Xamarin maybe good, but evaluate where the limitations are. They exist in the deepest code levels!!!
Good luck 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Karsten,
I was in the "cult of Mac" for a decade or so back in the 1980's, but abandoned that platform when I moved to Asia.
I am looking into the idea of creating a Hackintosh from various hardware components I am not using now. One thing I don't want to do is buy another monitor 
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
I would get a mac mini. You can use your existing monitors, or get a new in the same size. I feel the imac is way too limited, and osx does not scale text as good as windows does.
Then get some sort of ios device, emulators sucks, and are useless when it somes to services, camera and all the hardcore stuff 
Xcode is a nice ide, espacially if you change the shortcuts to match visual studio (i have done this in both xcode and android studio).
You need to find a few tutorials on the interweb, the way you make the ui, and connect events to code, in xcode is really strange and have a steep learning curve.
Swift vs objective c... I can understand why everyone want to use swift, it looks easy, but it's the strangest language i have ever used, and i have spent my time in c, c++, objective c, pascal, java and c#.
I hate the vb-like syntax of swift. It's like a strange mix of pascal, vb and javascript. Having used swift quite a lot, i actually think i prefer objective c...
- Anders
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Anders, I would be interested in knowing more about your experience with the "strangeness" of Swift compared to your experience with other languages/stacks, and I would guess some other people here would also be interested.
Consider a CP article ?
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
I've a shiny new iMac on my desk for Xamarin stuff in an org that is _totally_ PC based.
I'm getting envious looks and I've taken to rebooting it often JUST to get it to make the start up sound to remind everyone what they don't have;)
am i a bad man?
Bryce
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, my wife even laughed out loud at this.
Play it again Bryce. 
|
|
|
|
|
"sorry, guys - lots of 'software updates' today"
*chortle*
Bryce
|
|
|
|
|
So, they'll think it's worse than Windows 10 for updates then. You're not making them envious, you're making them glad.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
bryce wrote: to remind everyone what they don't have;
And I hope they are grateful for that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, just unlucky, that is all! 
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps for making unneeded noise, but that's all.. The last thing from Apple I might have bought was the Apple ][.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes one can get bogged down into lengthy argument about minor details going nowhere, as in
"- you said that
- No I mean this and that, it's out of context
- No this is what you said
- bla bla bla..."
It is my personal experience that such discussion only lead to mutual and painful frustration. So, in a recent one, I took it upon myself to just let it go. Despite one's natural urge to argue until your "adversary agree" (which never happen of course).
Now I wonder why is this not a natural behavior. What is the benefit of arguing? Surely if there is such a strong instinct for it there must be some evolutionary benefit!
Does you gain status by shooting louder? Does the mere fact of talking in public look good, whatever the outcome? After all I heard that politician length of time on screen is more important that being right or wrong or whatever they say...
|
|
|
|
|
I would have to agree, But...
It is part of the human flight or fight mechanism, and as such you only tend to notice the fight response and not so much the flight response. (as no argument was forth coming)
Thus the individuals that go straight to "fight mode" tends to have a strong desire to win everything by any means as you mentioned and will carry on until they feel a flight response is more productive or safer. (ie give up or just leave)
And as for politicians. You need to include the lying response to win. Here is an interesting article about that.
The truth is but a side show[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comments Ross... I will have to give it some thoughts...
Yeah, could be a fight or flight thing...
|
|
|
|
|
I would tend to subsume "arguing" as being a manifestation of one aspect, verbal, of the absolute necessity for dealing with conflict among social groups of primates, including Homo Saps.
It is, often, an inherent expression of the struggle-for and tensions-around dominance, control of resources, control of reproductive access (who gets to have sex with whom).
Consider, on one level, "arguing" as stylized social display of power, potential threat, while the "form" of arguing is shaped, governed, by extra-biological social norms, i.e., culture. One culture may have loud and apparently aggressive verbal "contests" as quite a "normal" thing; other cultures, like the one I live in, consider any public display of anger a real violation of the norms, and the one who loses control and gets aggressive loses "face."
On one level, an argument can possibly result in a discharge of tension that perhaps prevents homicide or more serious violence.
Perhaps "ideally" we homo saps can have "discussions about the issues" that are not arguments; but, in actuality, I would argue, there are always levels of competition going on, issues of power, role-maintenance, dominance, control, "face."
But, what a great thing it is when a work group can have high-spirited arguments about the "issues" and allow/tolerate a certain degree of aggression and tension to be manifested without long-term damage to relationships and work-goals ... when, in fact, such arguments actually promote group cohesion ... imho, that's where talented leadership comes into play.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, as you mention, there are good arguments! That might muddle things...
And there are "bad" arguments, which are about dominance, fight or flight...
And if I just drop it my personal output (or "face") will be affected in a culturally sensitive fashion. All good points!
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Surely if there is such a strong instinct for it there must be some evolutionary benefit!
There's where you went wrong. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you did there!
Anyhow it's not entirely incorrect, something also evolve by accident if they are neither harmful or beneficial. Or if they were beneficial at the time....
But your summarily reply is just wrong! 
|
|
|
|
|
You're on the right track here; as the late Stephen Jay Gould brought into focus, to say "evolutionary" is not to imply some form of "progress," or steps toward some ultimate-purpose-driven (teleological) goal.
"Evolution" driven by random mutations embroiders, and discards, and carries along "junk;" while it is selective adaptation that tends to "promote/reinforce" traits that contribute to the continuation/survival of the species, it is important not to personify/deify that dynamic principle (Dawkins likes to use the "blind watchmaker" as a metaphor for the "impersonal" aspect of this ... note that he uses that metaphor to mean exactly the opposite of what it meant when it was first used in the natural sciences) [^].
Could one say that perhaps evolution is as strange as the CodeProject rep system ? Well, I'm not sure I'd go that ... far
May I suggest you check out Gould's interesting concept of evolutionary "spandrels:" [^].
until the holographic simulation disembodies me, I remain certain there is no certainty, yours, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: But your summarily reply is just wrong!
OK.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: There's where you went wrong.
So Jeezzzuuuusssss wants us to argue for no discernible reason? He's a petty knob gobbler isn't he.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin wrote: wants us to argue for no discernible reason?
Nope, but clearly you've based your entire belief system on thinking so. And just proved it now.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Nope, but clearly you've based your entire belief system on thinking so. And just proved it now.
There is no belief system, so nothing is wrong. You, continually attempt to bring the sky fairy in when there is no need for make believe.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
