Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Should Open-Source Swift -- But Won't
snydeq writes: Faster innovation, better security, new markets — the case for opening Swift might be more compelling than Apple will admit, writes Peter Wayner. "In recent years, creators of programming languages have gone out of their way to get their code running on as many different computers as possible. This has meant open-sourcing their tools and doing everything they could to evangelize their work. Apple has never followed the same path as everyone else. The best course may be to open up Swift to everyone, but that doesn't mean Apple will. Nor should we assume that giving us something for free is in Apple's or (gasp) our best interests. The question of open-sourcing a language like Swift is trickier than it looks."
If Apple doesn't want the help of the OSS community then forget 'em.
Why bother crying and begging them to allow you to strengthen their products? If you want to work on Swift then send your resume to Apple.
Many click-bait, shit posts come from snydeq and they all link to how-is-it-still-in-business-rag InfoWorld.
I know Slashdot hasn't tried in years, but damn, there are interesting stories out there that can produce good discussion.
What I respect about Apples Swift (not to be mistaken for the other PL Swift) is that it/Apple doesn't claim Swift to be anything other than it actually is. An improvement on PLs already exisiting in Apples Ecosystem tailored *specifically* for developing in that ecosystem, catering to the preferences and addressing the pet peeves of their developer community. AFAICT with no downsides and measurable upsides if you intend to develop native iOS Apps exclusively.
*This* all IMHO is a new lock-in PL done right - as far as you can do those right. .Net/C# mess.
contrary to all the lies, damn lies and hideous marketing bullshit that went into the
Apple did it right again in the way that they actually let the engineers take care of the language, the designers layout a nice free iBook on it and basically kept marketing out of it. ... Not that Apples marketing is really that bad.
If I ever do native iOS development and embrace the golden cage, I might even look into it - the syntax does look less scary than that of the classic C family.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It took a vengeful God to confound the languages of man the first time around. This time around we have gone into do it ourselves mode as everyone who wants to either segment markets, is too lazy to improve an existing language, or just wants a monument to their ego creates a new language.
Swift is little more than a potential attractive nuisance and it's hardly in Apple's (The great creator of attractive nuisances) to open source it. They want it to become as popular as possible without becoming universal. That way they will have the largest possible code base and developer base trapped in their system without easy ways to exit.
You're both wrong/right. In order to supplant Objective-C, Swift would have to play well with the bazillion lines of Objective-C, and coexist with it for possibly a very long time. On the other hand, even if Apple "could not be more clear" that swift is built to supplant Objective-C, that doesn't mean it will succeed, and doesn't mean Apple won't change their mind. It's a gamble and they certainly know it. They keep that to themselves in order to encourage you to drink the cool-aid.
.NET
See also: Microsoft and
Type-casting -oh my lord type casting- is so astoundingly bad in Swift it really beggars belief that in the 21st century anyone could design something that bad!
Then I'd say you didn't understand it.