On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, ObjectiveCeeds
<info@objectiveceeds.com> wrote:
Thank you for your feedback.
No, there are no plans for a 320x480 device. Wouldn' t it be a pain to code on an iPhone/iPod?
This version makes extensive use of the iPad UI elements. Releasing an iPhone version would mean, to code it once again.
So, no plans for an iPhone version (yet). But many ideas for the iPad version ;-)
As far as that goes, wouldn't it be a pain to code on an iPad? I hope that an external keyboard could be used, or files be loaded from a computer or network. I don't think that the screen size or difficulty of coding on a platform should be rationale to include or not include support for it. I don't write code for embedded systems because it's more beautiful, more readable, or easier than coding on a PC, I do it for the results.
It's unfortunate that the UI elements are integral to your code even if you never port it to a platform with a smaller screen. What if Apple changes their API? You should instead have your own methods for common things like getting text from the keyboard or writing text to a box. This may be the systems engineer in me coming out, but it seems like the UI should be pretty easy to port to different platforms; the Lua interpreter is the interesting and difficult part of your code. You don't want to have your entire code base dependent on a rapidly changing and restrictive API - Instead, make it so you can change your code in a single place.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:36 AM, ObjectiveCeeds
<info@objectiveceeds.com> wrote:
It's
first name was "CodePad". When I wanted to submit it to Apple, I
realized that this bundle ID was occupied. I renamed everything to
"LunaPad" (targets, infopages, bundle website...). This was rejected by
Apple in the review process because of the "Pad" in the name. Once again
everything was changed to "Luna".
Interesting how CodePad is already in, but LunaPad couldn't be admitted because it has Pad in the name.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Javier Guerra Giraldez
<javier@guerrag.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:25 PM, ObjectiveCeeds <
info@objectiveceeds.com> wrote:
> These plist files are a system wide standard on Darwin operating systems, and they are used everywhere.
jokes aside, i don't think your system can be called Lua since you're
rebuilding it from the syntax and using todally different innards.
I
think it's on similar footing with LuaJIT. The stock innards are not
permissible on the app store, so it really has to be rebuilt. As long
as it's compatible with Lua, it's perfectly fine to call it a Lua
interpreter. However, the absence of tables is startling to say the
least.
