• Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      How can it virtualize/emulate without JIT? I’m aware of what JIT is in the context of programming languages, but I’m having trouble understanding how you can virtualize something without JIT.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        To convert one processor architecture to another, instead of translating it into code of the correct architecture, you can also simply perform the operation in the loop by interpreting each instruction as it is encountered.

        It’s the same distinction between a JIT and An interpreter. You can convert the code in chunks which is more efficient, or you can read the instructions one at the time and perform the corresponding operation.

        Apple does not allow JIT of any form from third-party developers to my knowledge.

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that code still technically runs as part of the browser, which is Apple code that is specially allowed to use JIT. The third-party code itself isn’t the JIT.

        • Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Wow, I didn’t realize Apple was that serious. I always thought their stance was not wanting Node.js, Python, etc. (interpreted languages) running, not necessarily this.

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You can ship Python in an iOS app just fine. It’s dynamic code generation that is specifically disallowed, among other rules.

  • kinkles@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I have a functional version of Windows 95 on my phone now, so that’s neat. XP setup was too slow and I got impatient.

  • wreleven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Test it out today. The limitations are apparent. Without the JIT it’s noticeable on my iPad compared to my mac. I actually thought it wasn’t working - turns out it was just sssuuuuppppeerrrr slow. Happy to support its development though. I’d love to be able to run my development environment on my iPad one day.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I like the direction Apple is going in. Probably not surprising given that their competitors (Microsoft and Google) make Shittier products every year, so they can try to get some consumers to switch that normally wouldn’t consider Apple products.

    • B0rax@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      To be fair: they didn’t start going this direction voluntarily, which I really hate.

      They did not recognize that these things (like USB-C, alternate AppStores (and in Extension allowing emulation as people would more likely to jump on the other AppStores without it), …) would be helpful for them…

      • Repple (she/her)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        USB-C was definitely happening in any case. Apple was among the first to standardize it on their laptops and desktops, they were just reluctant to move it to phones too soon after switching from 30 pin. When Apple announced lightning (before usb-c was ready) they said it would be the connector for the next 10 years to allay fears that they were just going to switch it again. The USB C switch happened 10 years later.

        The other stuff I agree with.