HyperPad behaviours through text like regular programming
-
I don't know if you guys realize, but apple doesn't allow apps to expose internal libraries to users. They also don't allow code to be uploaded or shared from within apps, and don't allow code to be executed in apps if it wasn't pre-compiled and included in the app.
This means ALL traditional coding languages are out of the question. Additionally, any language that would need to be executed, or packaged alongside a program would be unacceptable.
Heck, I'm not even certain a custom-command language that is interpreted into in-app functionality as I showed above is acceptable, but it's a lot more acceptable than anything else here.Thanks Apple.
-
I don't know if you guys realize, but apple doesn't allow apps to expose internal libraries to users. They also don't allow code to be uploaded or shared from within apps, and don't allow code to be executed in apps if it wasn't pre-compiled and included in the app.
This means ALL traditional coding languages are out of the question. Additionally, any language that would need to be executed, or packaged alongside a program would be unacceptable.
Heck, I'm not even certain a custom-command language that is interpreted into in-app functionality as I showed above is acceptable, but it's a lot more acceptable than anything else here.Thanks Apple.
@Thecheater887 Yes, this is well known. But it's (quite recently) been extremely relaxed compared to the past. Part of that is a result of the iPad Playgrounds app becoming a thing.
Part of it is a more relaxed stance on these sorts of matters.
And, yes, what I'm proposing is an intermediary, representative, custom command language doing nothing more than exposing the internal activities of a sandboxed, approved creative app's process. Much like automators and things like IFFFF or any other highly abstracted "language" are currently doing.
The key to a chance of approval is that it be limited to the functionality of the underlying app, nothing else possible, and that that already be approved and obviously limited to activity within itself.
This means downloading URL based images and other stuff is definitely OUT. Not an option. Only user created and hosted content (on device) and the App's existing and already approved content and its in-app purchasable content (which is also approved, obviously).
Allay the fears of Apple, basically. Understand why this rule originally existed and play within the spirit of their intentions and concerns.
-
@Thecheater887 Yes, this is well known. But it's (quite recently) been extremely relaxed compared to the past. Part of that is a result of the iPad Playgrounds app becoming a thing.
Part of it is a more relaxed stance on these sorts of matters.
And, yes, what I'm proposing is an intermediary, representative, custom command language doing nothing more than exposing the internal activities of a sandboxed, approved creative app's process. Much like automators and things like IFFFF or any other highly abstracted "language" are currently doing.
The key to a chance of approval is that it be limited to the functionality of the underlying app, nothing else possible, and that that already be approved and obviously limited to activity within itself.
This means downloading URL based images and other stuff is definitely OUT. Not an option. Only user created and hosted content (on device) and the App's existing and already approved content and its in-app purchasable content (which is also approved, obviously).
Allay the fears of Apple, basically. Understand why this rule originally existed and play within the spirit of their intentions and concerns.
Some people have trouble believing me on first take, probably because I'm sure of myself and somewhat arrogant in writing. In person, I'm far worse.
No need to believe me, read this instead: https://twitter.com/palmin/status/871980560943636480
-
@Thecheater887 Yes, this is well known. But it's (quite recently) been extremely relaxed compared to the past. Part of that is a result of the iPad Playgrounds app becoming a thing.
Part of it is a more relaxed stance on these sorts of matters.
And, yes, what I'm proposing is an intermediary, representative, custom command language doing nothing more than exposing the internal activities of a sandboxed, approved creative app's process. Much like automators and things like IFFFF or any other highly abstracted "language" are currently doing.
The key to a chance of approval is that it be limited to the functionality of the underlying app, nothing else possible, and that that already be approved and obviously limited to activity within itself.
This means downloading URL based images and other stuff is definitely OUT. Not an option. Only user created and hosted content (on device) and the App's existing and already approved content and its in-app purchasable content (which is also approved, obviously).
Allay the fears of Apple, basically. Understand why this rule originally existed and play within the spirit of their intentions and concerns.
@Deeeds what’s wrong with downloading url based images?
-
I don't know if you guys realize, but apple doesn't allow apps to expose internal libraries to users. They also don't allow code to be uploaded or shared from within apps, and don't allow code to be executed in apps if it wasn't pre-compiled and included in the app.
This means ALL traditional coding languages are out of the question. Additionally, any language that would need to be executed, or packaged alongside a program would be unacceptable.
Heck, I'm not even certain a custom-command language that is interpreted into in-app functionality as I showed above is acceptable, but it's a lot more acceptable than anything else here.Thanks Apple.
@Thecheater887 I thought educational apps could upload and share code, as long as the user could view and edit it?
-
Apple has in fact relaxed the rules. But, some of the other stuff we're doing make it so they wouldn't be too happy (like the hub).
They're still pretty strict though.Also, this is a huuge undertaking and not something we're prepared to do right now. There are some stuff in the works for exported projects and being able to interact with swift or objective-c outside of the app. But it will be unlikely to ever function within the app.
@Thecheater887 welcome back, you disappeared for a while :).
-
Apple has in fact relaxed the rules. But, some of the other stuff we're doing make it so they wouldn't be too happy (like the hub).
They're still pretty strict though.Also, this is a huuge undertaking and not something we're prepared to do right now. There are some stuff in the works for exported projects and being able to interact with swift or objective-c outside of the app. But it will be unlikely to ever function within the app.
@Thecheater887 welcome back, you disappeared for a while :).
@Murtaza Another suggestion: Kill the hub.
Or just let it die. It's distracting from the core attraction of interactivity creativity and an idea from an era of the old internet. An internet that is no more.
There will never be another kongregate, and we've all since moved and grown into being connoisseurs of mobile gaming, social networking and instant messaging.
-
@Murtaza Another suggestion: Kill the hub.
Or just let it die. It's distracting from the core attraction of interactivity creativity and an idea from an era of the old internet. An internet that is no more.
There will never be another kongregate, and we've all since moved and grown into being connoisseurs of mobile gaming, social networking and instant messaging.
@Deeeds What, why get rid of the hub? You surely can't get rid of and redo everything?
-
@Deeeds What, why get rid of the hub? You surely can't get rid of and redo everything?
You surely can't fight Apple.
The Five Knights of the Future's Round Table:
Google
Amazon
Apple
Facebook
Microsoft// Oracle
If you're in a situation where your product in some way goes against their policies, but is reliant on their platform(s), you only have two options:
- Die Slowly but Surely
- Follow their policies and have a chance to thrive
Apple has made it clear that they consider themselves to be the hub for all forms of entertainment, and that this is their "software" and "service" industry initiative.
Picking a fight with Apple over where people consume or communicate about what they make in your app that's provided via their app store to their devices is... well, frankly... stupid.
Facebook is 1 million times the idea of any and all game hubs, and replaces all of them, forever... with the exception of PS Network, Xbox Live, Steam which are platforms in their own rights, based on enthusiasts which make up a significant but small section of society.
-
@Murtaza Another suggestion: Kill the hub.
Or just let it die. It's distracting from the core attraction of interactivity creativity and an idea from an era of the old internet. An internet that is no more.
There will never be another kongregate, and we've all since moved and grown into being connoisseurs of mobile gaming, social networking and instant messaging.
@Deeeds I like the hub, and there are some good games on there that aren't on the AppStore yet.
It's also a great way to get others to test your game and receive feedback, and it can be used for free so people who don't want to invest money can still share their creations.
If apple continues to allow it I think it should stay. If the hub gets removed, I'm sure someone else (probably me) would make their own hub.
-
You surely can't fight Apple.
The Five Knights of the Future's Round Table:
Google
Amazon
Apple
Facebook
Microsoft// Oracle
If you're in a situation where your product in some way goes against their policies, but is reliant on their platform(s), you only have two options:
- Die Slowly but Surely
- Follow their policies and have a chance to thrive
Apple has made it clear that they consider themselves to be the hub for all forms of entertainment, and that this is their "software" and "service" industry initiative.
Picking a fight with Apple over where people consume or communicate about what they make in your app that's provided via their app store to their devices is... well, frankly... stupid.
Facebook is 1 million times the idea of any and all game hubs, and replaces all of them, forever... with the exception of PS Network, Xbox Live, Steam which are platforms in their own rights, based on enthusiasts which make up a significant but small section of society.
-
@Deeeds I would use HyperPad way less often if I couldn’t show off any good stuff I’ve made with HyperPad, though, it’d probably have a negative effect on HyperPad.
-
If the Hub was removed, I’d probably stop using hyperPad, or work with @Jack8680 to make our own lol.
-
If the Hub was removed, I’d probably stop using hyperPad, or work with @Jack8680 to make our own lol.
-
@Deeeds where would you share them? On the forums? Then you'd have to make a post about it and put in your own formatting, and where would you upload the project? The hub is an easy way to share projects, with a single tap to play a project.
I still don't see a reason to remove the hub unless apple doesn't allow it or it blocks some other functionality from existing.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login