Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Your exact words were
The "every single time" and "have to" parts can only be true if iOS developers have no alternative. As your statement is in the present tense, whether or not it was the case in the past has no bearing on the truth of your statement. It has been shown that there is an alternative, hence your statement is demonstrably false.
|
That's not true. If there is no practical easy way to account for scalability, then essentially what I said is correct. Because
if there is an alternative, it is not viable.
As for the statement being in the present tense, as I've already said MULTIPLE times, I amended my original position to include the fact that finally Apple gave developers an easy way to include scalability in their apps with iOS6. My statement was true up to the time of iOS6 -- for the majority of the history of that platform. My statement was MOSTLY true, but I did make qualifications to it.
Quote:
Your assumption is incorrect - it's a fully professional app.
Who was talking about reading things into other people's words?
|
I made assumptions about the app you referenced but did not describe, but I did not put words into your mouth -- along with false quotes -- the way you tried to do with my statements. There's a big difference there. HUGE.
Quote:
You haven't addressed my point about what evidence it would take to convince you that an app uses springs and struts in its interface (you can't tell from the outside, you'd need to look at the code).
/JB
|
Huh? I never tried to argue that iOS apps never used springs and struts in its interface. Where did you get that from? So why would I need convincing of that?
This is what I asked you to prove (exact quote):
"Just name a widely used consumer app that was scalable prior to iOS6. OR reference an article that supports your claim that scalability was practical OR widely used prior to iOS6."
Still waiting.
--Pat