Swift: Apple's Biggest Achievement For Coders
GordonShure.com writes: Despite its publicity and hype being rather quiet by Apple standards, the Swift programming language has attracted praise since its release last year. Swift is one of the few Apple products that represent a departure from the hardware-led Steve Jobs approach to the business. If this year's survey of coders by Stack Overflow is anything to go by, it looks as if the language might have potential to really shake things up in a landscape which has been little changed since the 1990s. Might the days of Apple programmers relying upon objective C be numbered?
How's Swift's cross-platform suitability?
There are two Apple platforms, one popular Google platform, one less-popular Google platform, plus Microsoft's platform. Is Swift suitable for writing applications for all? If not, developers would be writing for a limited, albeit popular platform, but limited to a certain subset nonetheless.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I haven't seen it mentioned on CNN or the BBC, but there's about a dozen stories about it per day on a former tech new website.
In fact, it's pushed 3D printers off the number one spot.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Obj-C is on the way out.
Uhh, no. So much of the system libraries on both OS X and iOS are written in Objective-C and they aren't going anywhere. Also, all the new APIs of iOS 9 and OS X 10.11 are still written in both C and Objective-C with Swift bridge headers. Basically, it's the opposite of what you claim.
I'd guess that we're about a year away from the point where the majority new code at Apple is written in Swift.
Maybe at the application level, but not for system libraries.
That would probably have prevented the annoying bug I ran into a few years ago where someone copied a 64-bit time_t to a 32-bit int, did some arithmetic, and then copied it back to a 64-bit time_t, requiring us to update firmware at all customer sites to fix it. If they had to explicitly convert, they'd almost certainly have realized they were doing something wrong.
That bug alone probably cost us more money than the time required for programmers to always explicitly convert types.