I wonder why a permission-based approach wouldn't be feasible. Most websites don't need GPU access anyway, so why couldn't a game or simulation just prompt the user quickly for granting access to the GPU?
paperplane
joined 3 years ago
To be fair, even with 3G networks being decommissioned, many countries still have 2G networks up and running to support older phones. Data speeds are usually way to slow to be useable, but for text messages it might work.
By the way, it looks like someone already did this (though for iOS 6): https://chatgptlegacy.com/
The app seems to be open-source too: https://github.com/bag-xml/ChatGPT-for-Legacy-iOS
Don't think it would be impossible to make an app for both iOS 3 and 26. You wouldn't be able to make it binary-compatible due to different architectures, but you might be able to use the same source code to target both OSes. You'd have to use a very old Xcode version to target iOS 3, since deployment targets this old generally aren't really supported by recent Xcode versions, and you wouldn't be able to submit that version to the App Store. Naturally you'd have to limit yourself to some subset of UIKit APIs supported back then (that hasn't been deprecated and removed). But if done right, you should be able to open up the project with a recent Xcode, hit build and run it on iOS 26.
Arguably mapping out cities to this degree across the globe is a ginormous effort, on an order of magnitude more so than what Google Maps etc. currently provide. Thus I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to try designing something that operates purely in terms of sensory input (and of course map data where available, those approaches don't have to be mutually exclusive).
What I mean is that you (IIUC) can't use an AGPL library in a GPL app without relicensing the whole thing to AGPL. For many larger projects relicensing is a huge hassle and often a non-starter if there aren't very good reasons for it.
"just don't enforce it" probably isn't enough for most companies and projects
A good reason to pick GPL is if you want to allow GPL software to integrate yours and you don't care that much about the AGPL clauses (e.g. because your app isn't a server).
CC0 might be a good fit for trivial template repos where you don't want to burden downstream projects with having to include copyright notices.
As long as you limit yourself to a subset of modern C++, it's actually a decent language. Less guardrails than Rust, but more syntactic sugar (think overloading, default parameters, implicit this, implicit reference-taking, implicit conversions). You could argue those are anti-features, but even as someone who really likes Rust, I gotta admit C++ is occasionally more ergonomic.
Projects for Apple platforms usually also use .h, where it could mean anything from C/C++ to Objective-C/C++.
In practice, Clang handles mixed C/C++/Obj-C codebases pretty well and determining the language for a header never really felt like an issue since the API would usually already imply it (declaring a C++ class and/or Obj-C class would require the corresponding language to consume it).
If a C++ header is intended to be consumed from C, adding the usual #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" {... should alleviate the name mangling issues.
view more: next ›
In both cases, checkout updates your working tree (by checking out either all or just some files from a commit), just when you're switching branches it moves your HEAD pointer too