Can’t you interface natively with objective-c objects from swift? It’s a much smaller ABI to target than the C++ one and most languages I know have some decent bindings.
I gotta say, I’ve written thousands of lines of assembler and can count the times that inline assembly was clearly useful on one hand. The clear benefits seem to be readability and concentration of documentation.
FWIW I mostly see AT&T when compiling against C codebases to a) avoid requiring a secondary assembler & wanting to support legacy binutils and b) because inline C is AT&T in practice, at least outside of windows (no clue what the c ecosystem is like there). However, most resources exploring “assembly” do so in a context where it makes sense to use intel syntax & work with a “dedicated” assembler.
That said, this is a good decision because C compilers seem to be the major holdouts at this point—binutils has had .intel_syntax for a long time now, it’s just not supported inline.
You’re absolutely right, that is a large part of why I keep using iOS. It’s also a very common exciting part of switching from android based on my own social circle.
So you would prefer to keep open exploits around and approach with security-by-obscurity?
Somehow I think Apple can muster the resources to respond to vulnerabilities in exactly the same way you’re claiming they respond to open source exploitation. You may have a point with much smaller projects, but this is apple and they can easily outfund exploiters before there’s mass exploitation according to your analysis of increased attention.
If ever Apple needed to open source server and client code for a public good it is with imessages. Yes it has clear limits with a centralized server, but it is realistically how a lot of “secure” messaging happens and it’s very difficult to endorse being tied to expensive hardware.
You can say the same about facetime: it is clearly higher quality than competitors in every experiment I’ve tried, but their refusal to interact with the wider software community means we all use zoom or skype instead for personal chatting. These are tools; they should be effectively free and universal.
Right, but they could pack the food and ask me to verify before delivering, same as at starbucks.
In fact at starbucks I’m rather shocked this is an issue—you don’t have the weird issue of products being in someone’s cart while they appear in inventory, let alone blatant theft! You’d think they would be able to provide an accurate inventory in realtime.
EDIT: also, to clarify, “by phone” in my previous post meant I called the store to ask if they have the item my shopper couldn’t find. They put me on hold to check the shelves.
I have had so many bad experiences with instacart:
* shopper buying yams rather than potatoes (note: this was not a replacement, they seemed to genuinely believe they had bought potatoes.)
* shopper going to checkout before I can suggest a better replacement for an item.
* shopper buys obviously moldy fruit.
* shopper buys five roaster chickens as a replacement for five cornish hens.
* shopper gives up really easily on trivial things like a common chip brand.
It’s frustrating because I can both understand the shopper, but I then need to give instacart more money to actually get the food I’ve verified by phone they have in stock. Furthermore, about 80% of these omissions are most easily fixable if I just drive to the store and buy it. So yea, I just do my own shopping again so I don’t spend $30 on delivery fees and tips and end up spending $5 on furry strawberries.
I don’t understand why instacart can’t work with the store to pack the inventory by people who know where shit is, can identify products, and can inquire about inventory. Other delivery services do just fine with a two-legged approach.
I'd be more worried about apple integrating into the hardware people want.