New Apple Lust Objects for 2010 and onward

im guessing that they're gonna pull a switcheroo and say that it's actually just the updated mainline ipad

camera bump on the fucking ipad? so much for drawing on the damn thing

happy about the small phone but the names is indicative of their current lack of imagination. also fk 16gb that's disrespectful.

a 64gb model will be available too, but yeah please stop pretending that 48gb is worth $100, Apple

yeah - such bullshit that they went with baseline 16gb again

why are they so mean

i'm glad they brought back the Small iPhone With 3.5mm Headphone Jack right before they get rid of the 3.5mm Headphone Jack for Big iPhone

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iVaxA_kVN8M/maxresdefault.jpg

Can we talk about that ugly rumour about the iPhone 7 ditching the headphone jack? Will there be some sort of adapter to convert the digital audio from the lightning port? Please tell me Apple isn't crazy enough to expect all of us to buy new iPhone-only headphones

oh they'll sell the hell out of some $20 adapter. thats the whole point.

i may not upgrade if they go this route. also won't upgrade if they keep the base 16g

I have nerve damage in one hand and can't hold the 6 or 6S - I bought a six last year and had to return and refund it. Too hard to hold. This new phone might be creatively bankrupt but I'm excited to get something I can actually use. One person's boring is another's accessible.

ok I bought the new mini iphone. the 6s (and obvs the 6s+) has been way too awkward for me.

is it... good?

i will tell you in 1 week. from what i can tell after 5 mins of research, it is essentially the same phone as the 6s* but in the 5/5s 4-inch body.

*except for 3D-touch and maybe a lesser front-facing camera, 2 features that I'm not particularly swayed by.

do any of youse have any positive feelings about the 5c?

I thought it was a nice phone, kind of underpowered but a good shape

would you have gone for an update of that (vs. the metal paradigm)?

i'm not sure what i'm into these days

I have a 5c and it does what I want it to do other than stay charged all day but that's all iPhones. I've never noticed any lack of speed for my needs.

https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/

I bought a newly released 5s as my first and thus far only iphone and have had zero complaints tbh

Internet photoshoppers have been hard at work on MacBook Pro OLED concept art. I like this one: http://www.martinhajek.com/macbook-meets-oled/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7436/27496375661_9907058f5c_b.jpg

nice - but what really is the sense of this?

Yeah what's OLED? If it means it won't have clicky keys then I'm opposed.

nah the idea is it'd have a display strip above the keyboard to show you, uh, something

maybe some of those notification states ppl cram in the menu bar now?

it's just gonna show whether you have caps lock on or not

if you do, it says "yes"

ugh we have a bunch of Lenovo X1 Carbons and I hate it (bcz instead of having F1-F12 keys it just has a long strip)

where's markers at, are all my real apple doods checking out this dev conference stuf

open music, get library

incredible innovation

have to blow away the cruft every once in a while

I'm into the awesome-ing up of iMessage and the API-ing of Siri

Watch might finally be useful

FINALLY a stake is driven into HFS+ but beware of splinters
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/06/digging-into-the-dev-documentation-for-apfs-apples-new-file-system/

o shit

Hope Siracusa comes out of retirement to talk about that a bit

No mention of the Dynamic kerfuffle during the Swift talk last night. I'm with the oldies on this one; I like Objective-C and I wish some of these whippersnappers understood what it was good for before inventing less-useful successors. But I'm still in a snit that bindings didn't make to iOS (not least because I saw a very cool demo of them running on an engineer's phone once) and a bigger snit about dot syntax so it's no surprise I'm not the biggest Swift fan.

dynamic kerfuffle? please to have the links

I don't have links but some people complained about Swift's type system and then John Gruber got to pretend he has written a line of code since he crapped out Markdown.pl

Tsai has the links: http://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/05/21/dynamic-swift-2/

I haven't jumped into ObjC/Swift development (just a little fiddling around with ObjC every couple years) but have a love/hate relationship with dynamic objects and all they entail

I'm assuming by "bindings," stet, you're talking about the GUI type that's essential to things like MVVM and a slew of modern frameworks and I'm kind of surprised, although not shocked, that there's no support. The current world of higher-end libraries and GUI frameworks are possibly _too_ dependent on dynamism although, outside of strict implementation in the native libraries, I'm not sure if there's a good solution.

Having gone from backend Java programming that seemed to get more coupled to dynamic binding every year (Spring, any ORM solution, eventually every library that seemed to exist) to desktop C# with MVVM/WPF I can see where leaving Swift in a binding-less, dynamism-free world makes everything very literal and debugging much simpler, but it kneecaps the ability to implement any modern-styled libraries without leaning heavily on the ObjC runtime.

I'm guessing the interim will be abstracting all your foundational code in ObjC or relying on community libraries that do all that for you and implementing pure Swift solutions, but again, you're going to hit a debugging black hole.

On the other hand, there's the WPF-style nightmare where if you don't code things exactly MVVM-style, setting up bindings required some near-arcane memorization of the binding syntax. I think the debugging/visual tools for setting those up in Visual Studio have gotten a lot better, but I still grind my teeth thinking about running an app in debug and looking for particular binding errors in the logs due to the fact missing a binding didn't generate an exception in user code

by dynamic it sounds like people are talking about introspection/reflection? these are both things you can achieve perfectly well in a static setting...

(also suspect that ppl aren't comfortable enough with protocols as a mechanism for polymorphism?)

I think that those two things are the most visible implementations in modern languages, yeah

xxp there's some good stuff from better beards than me about why that's not really the case here, at least not with substantial extra effort. Things like NSCoding, KVO and the responder chain are harder to achieve, and were impossible in earlier versions of Swift. A Swift author writes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11752983

Swift has protocols and people seem pretty OK with them, too.

with NSCoding I think the issue is what people would otherwise call "auto-deriving of protocols". that's absolutely solvable with "static reflection" (also known as "real generics").

I guess if we get all this without the Obj-C runtime etc, it'll all be sweet. But given we've got it all right now, I'm peeved at having to wait. I like Objective-C, basically.

all the things a journeyman programmer should be able to avoid but gets drawn into

I imagine this discussion will disappear when Swift introduces higher-kinded types for protocols.