It seems absurd and unenforcable; I mean, applications are originally written in my head.

Since Apple completely controls the App Store and reserves the right to refuse any app for any reason (and have shown time and again they are willing to exercise that right), how could this possibly be unenforceable? It is their way or the highway. What is or isn't enforceable is entirely up to them.

Note: I am in no way saying that Apple's stance on this situation is a good one or not, in face, absurd. The iPhone 3G is the last Apple product I will ever buy because of this and other iPod/iPad related anti-developer bullcrap.

Unless they start auditing source code and everyone's entire development process, there are lots of ways in which such a rule could be violated that would be completely undetectable (and some cases that would be easily detectable too).

Quite, but would you admit publicly to having done so?

I think you have it there. Developers probably need to be ready to submit their source code along with their binary. That is my guess on what will happen when one sees the "denied because it isn't hand written."

What this will absolutely stop is Adobe calling out developers who have added apps to the app store compiled with CS5. Those apps created that way will also be unable to move upwards to the new OS version. I would imagine it will also completely stop Adobe and others from any development on any OS 4 bridge because they would have to agree to the license to test against the actual SDK and they can't do that without legal problems.

Next up: Only non-sentient developers allowed.

Quite. How does one extend this to real-world languages? "You must originally compose message board posts in English" So, nazi mind-readers to detect those secret English-as-2nd-Language speakers who are secretly, nefariously still thinking first in their native language before rephrasing it in English?

I've just invented a new language: C2010. It looks exactly like ActionScript, for some reason...

(Hint: Apple's version of C is unlike any standard version of C, like C99. So technically, you can't use Apple's tools. Or, you can call anything you want C, just like they do.)

This is incorrect. Apple's C is C99; they have also introduced a new optional syntax for blocks that they have submitted for standardization.

Right, and $foo is just C but with $bar.

To be fair, all widely-used C compilers I am aware of have extensions to the C90 and C99 standards, which they accept as conformant code by default.

Sure, and that's fine. What Apple is doing is saying, "you must use C" without actually defining what "C" is.

There was a hacker news discussion a while back by one of the principals of Coverity in which they asserted, with no small experience, that there is no such thing as a C language. This is due to the wide number of variations in what compilers accept and that users of C compilers expect.

Sure there is an ideal, but practically, there is not consistent definition of the C language.

The article discussed was this one in CACM (link is to discussion on Lambda the Ultimate) http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3824 . I remember seeing it on HN too, but couldn't find the page immediately.

Wrong.

Apple's C is C99 (as implemented by both gcc and clang). If you wish to take advantage of something like Grand Central Dispatch, they recommend that you do so with their completely optional syntax for blocks (which, aside from being closures AFAIK, are essentially anonymous functions in situ instead of defining a function externally).

You can still use GCD without the new block syntax by using function pointers, leaving you with bog standard C99.

Frankly, gcc implements a lot more non-standard stuff on its own than Apple's blocks have introduced.