That’s a popular line around here but it doesn’t line up with the reality. When they’ve done architecture changes in the past they’ve reached out to large developers for feedback before committing to the changes being made. The original very OpenStep like OS X did not ship en mass because it lacked a bridge library to support developers and Adobe and others cried foul. That’s how Carbon came about. When 64bit Carbon was shelved some 10 years ago, the “sky is falling” was proclaimed but Adobe came along for the ride and everything was fine. Are Technica did a great write up summarizing both the genesis and end of Carbon development [0]
The PPC transition and Intel Transition both had emulators, fat binary support, and for the Intel transition, early access to developer hardware [1]. I’m not sure how much more you can ask of Apple. The current iOS simulator compiles to native Intel code and then builds for deployment use the appropriate CPU target. The tooling is mature and the execution know.
Apple can certainly do better in a lot of areas, i.e. Swift examples that are either missing or are too old to compile. This is something they’re competent at.
The PPC transition and Intel Transition both had emulators, fat binary support, and for the Intel transition, early access to developer hardware [1]. I’m not sure how much more you can ask of Apple. The current iOS simulator compiles to native Intel code and then builds for deployment use the appropriate CPU target. The tooling is mature and the execution know.
Apple can certainly do better in a lot of areas, i.e. Swift examples that are either missing or are too old to compile. This is something they’re competent at.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/staff/2008/04/rhapsody-and-blues/
[1] http://vintagemacmuseum.com/the-apple-developer-transition-s...