I agree. But I guess it depends on the succes of the OS X app store. If becomes popular quickly, it does not make sense to use a non-exclusive technology, while it could attract a lot of developers otherwise.
Though, I think it will require inclusion of MacRuby, or an exception in the OS X App store terms. It's not that likely that they will accept a bundle-wrapped MacRuby given that they also do not accept programs that use deprecated technologies (Java, Rosetta).
I think the "deprecated" clause is only in there so that apps don't rely on parts of the operating system that are deprecated and likely to disappear, not frameworks you link in (of which there are thousands out there).
The clause makes sense in this respect because if you rely on OS X's Java or Rosetta and Apple removes them, your app breaks. Something linked into your .app file? That can't be "deprecated" by Apple.
The clause says deprecated and optional technologies will be banned. So sorry but if MacRuby is not part of the OS, then it is pretty clear it is optional so it will not be allowed on the appstore.
And it is completely useless to think about what makes sense or doesn't when talking about the appstore. The iOS app-store forbids apps that were made with particular compilers even if they are submitted in app-store allowed form. Does that make sense?
The clause says deprecated and optional technologies will be banned. So sorry but if MacRuby is not part of the OS, then it is pretty clear it is optional so it will not be allowed on the appstore.
In such a liberal interpretation, all third party libraries could be banned, but no-one's going to entirely write apps that only use Apple's frameworks. That's not even the case with iOS. You can include extra "optional" frameworks into iOS apps no problem. The main reason MacRuby hasn't made it to iOS yet as an including framework is due to its reliance on garbage collection functionality not present in iOS.
And it is completely useless to think about what makes sense or doesn't when talking about the appstore. The iOS app-store forbids apps that were made with particular compilers even if they are submitted in app-store allowed form. Does that make sense?
I think you might have missed the update on that story from a month ago. Straight from Apple's mouth:
In particular, we are relaxing all restrictions on the
development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the
resulting apps do not download any code.
We are not just talking linking here. Including a Ruby interpreter, and a part of the Ruby library, or a Java virtual machine and class library if you will. I don't think Apple will go for that.
FWIW, they already allow Lua to operate in a similar manner on iOS since the third-party development tools policy change in September.
I think Apple relaxed the rules because it's all too hazy. Linking in a PDF "interpreter" that calls out to various image decompression libraries is structurally little different than how MacRuby could roll.
Though, I think it will require inclusion of MacRuby, or an exception in the OS X App store terms. It's not that likely that they will accept a bundle-wrapped MacRuby given that they also do not accept programs that use deprecated technologies (Java, Rosetta).