Apple Announces New Programming Language Called Swift

jmcbain (1233044) writes "At WWDC 2014 today, Apple announced Swift, a new programming language. According to a report by Ars Technica: 'Swift seems to get rid of Objective C's reliance on defined pointers; instead, the compiler infers the variable type, just as many scripting languages do. ... The new language will rely on the automatic reference counting that Apple introduced to replace its garbage-collected version of Objective C. It will also be able to leverage the compiler technologies developed in LLVM for current development, such as autovectorization. ... Apple showed off a couple of cases where implementing the same algorithm in Swift provided a speedup of about 1.3X compared to the same code implemented in Objective C.'" Language basics, and a few worthwhile comments on LtU.

Comments

and it needs an new OS the mess up other apps

[Joe_Dragon]

and it needs an new OS the mess up other apps and makes people not want to get the new OS.

Re:Good bye source compatibility

[mark-t]

.... For now.

Since when does Qt "work" with OS X?

[TrollstonButterbeans]

No this is NOT a troll, please read.

A claim of cross-platform is one thing. But in practice I know of no significant apps using Qt that exist in the wild that work on OS X.

Please provide a link to any mainstream working application for Mac OS X that uses Qt. I don't know of a single one because Qt's support for XCode is incredibly poor.

(And if I wrong, I will free accept it and eat my post, but I have yet to see one and I have actively looked. Qt's support for OS X is pretty, really bad but admitted I haven't tried it the last 18 months to see if anything changed).

Re:Since when does Qt "work" with OS X?

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Did you provide a link to any OS X mainstream application? No you did not.

You might have provided some nifty rhetoric to someone OS X illiterate -- which is all fine and good --- but I as pointed out, there are no mainstream applications for OS X that use Qt. Zero = None = They Don't Exist.

Not only did you not provide one, no one else did either.

The scientific method is providing proof --- rhetoric and hot air is great, but science is providing evidence -- there is not any evidence of any mainstream application that has ever been made for Mac OS X and there is still none.

Re:Since when does Qt "work" with OS X?

[TrollstonButterbeans]

You didn't provide a link to an existing Mac OS X application that uses Qt. My challenge was name a single one that anyone has heard of.

You didn't. My point has been made, I don't give a crap about your IDE of preference --- my statement is that no mainstream Mac OS X applications using Qt even exist.

And they don't. You can use whatever compiler you like, but in practice there are no such applications that even exist --- none --- and that was my point.

Re:Since when does Qt "work" with OS X?

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Awesome post. And yet post #50 of a diatribe that fails to cite a single Mac OS X of significance that uses Qt.

My point isn't that *I am right*, but that what I point out *IS RIGHT*.

You can write any screed you like, but the facts are no Qt applications of any significance exist on Mac OS X.

Re:Since when does Qt "work" with OS X?

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Never heard of it. Not even the GNU ever HERD of it.

Re: Good bye source compatibility

[loufoque]

You, sir, are part of the cancer destroying the UI of perfectly fine applications.