Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases First Preview of Swift 3.0 (macrumors.com)
DaGoatSpanka quotes a report from MacRumors: Apple yesterday released the first preview build of Swift 3.0, a major update to Apple's open source Swift programming language. Swift 3.0's official release is expected to come in late 2016 after proposed changes are finalized. The Swift 3.0 preview can be downloaded from the official Swift website. There are versions of Swift 3.0 available for Xcode 7.2, Ubuntu 14.04, and Ubuntu 15.10. [Swift 3.0 is not source compatible with Swift 2.2 as it introduces source-breaking changes, but going forward, the goal is to make Swift 3.0 source compatible with future Swift language updates.] Swift 3.0 will likely be shown at Apple's upcoming Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC).
Last release broke for loops, what was broken now? If statements??
And thus, Swift will forever remain nothing more than a toy language for worthless apps.
Make no mistake: this isn't Swift version 3 - it is the language Swift 3. I guess Swift 4 will not be (completely) backwards compatible either. Because the idea of a programming language evolving from a stable, thoroughly tested base specification is old - not fit for the Apple(TM) generation...
That is the most ridiculous statement ever. Nothing that anyone has learned is obsolete. They removed extra verbosity from standard library function calls - Objective C was, by convention, excessively verbose in naming of methods, enums, classes, everything. Moving away from that legacy is not bad, and they are releasing a tool to automatically convert code. Nobody will be forced to rename everything in their own code. You're frankly coming across as a complete troll.
Really? So you are saying my PDP11 ML knowledge isn't obsolete? Thanks for the tip. It isn't trolling: it is a warning to avoid languages controlled by a single corporate entity. They can pull things from under you at their whim. Also, what a laugh: Swift 2.2 was released on MARCH 16, 2016!
Apple developers are probably used to the abuse by this point considering that the Mac itself has undergone three architecture changes as they moved from the Motorola 68000 to IBM PowerPC and then to x86. I wouldn't be surprised if in another five years they've completed abandoned x86 and move to using their own ARM SoC designs for all of their products.
They probably should have kept Swift behind closed doors while tinkering with it to make all of these changes. I realize that you need people using the language to discover ways of making it better, but Apple has loads of their own developers that could used started using the language and helping it evolve before releasing it to the public.
Your argument makes no sense.
First of all, there's no such thing as "obsolete" knowledge when it comes to programming languages. This knowledge is very useful if you ever have to maintain code. And the newer knowledge typically builds upon the older knowledge.
Additionally, programming languages developed by open source communities or working groups suffer from exactly the same problem. Yes, when moving to a new version of a programming language we as programmers need to learn new things! It doesn't matter if you're using Swift or Java or C++ or Perl or Ruby or Erlang or Haskell or Lua or JavaScript or whatever other language you want to consider. It doesn't matter who developed the new version of the language. A new version of anything typically implies some learning will be involved!
It sounds to me like you want stagnation. Well, sorry son, but that doesn't fly when it comes to technology. Technology is always advancing. If you can't keep up, then you should drop out and find something else to do.
Too bad if you put time into learning Swift 2.0. That knowledge is now obsolete. And when Swift 4.0 comes out, your Swift 3.0 knowledge will be obsolete. My advice to young programmers: avoid languages owned by corporations. They have time and money to waste. You don't.
LOL I take it that you have never looked at C++, an ISO standardized language. Code written in C++98 and C++14 almost appear to be written in different languages.
And actually one of the advantages of a corporate controlled language is you totally avoid the "Designed by committee approach" to things.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Actually C++ is a good example: C++ was released in 1985 and has multiple compilers available and that code still compiles in 2016. Swift 2.2 came out 3 MONTHS AGO. There is no advantage to a corporate controlled anything.
Well that sounds an awful lot like what Swift is!
They both target into the same direction, but rust is a far more "safe" language than Swift is.
While Swift has already seen major adoption and use in the real world, we haven't seen that from Rust.
Quite on the contrary: https://www.rust-lang.org/frie...
And that page only contains the corporate users of rust. There is a really big community of free time rust developers as well.
Others have pointed out that C++14 and C++17 actually make much of Rust redundant.
That might be partially right, but C++ has lots and lots of backwards compatibility to very old concepts. C++ relies on the C preprocessor, which is very limited, on doing macros. Thanks to this you don't have scoped macros for example. In rust the macro system is done much later in the process, so that you can declare a macro inside a function, and after the } closing brace the macro scope ends!
There was recent discussion about Google adopting Swift for Android [slashdot.org]. IBM has also taken an interest in Swift [ibm.com].
Using swift for android would make sense as both android and ios are similar platforms, you likely want to write stuff for them in one unified language.
Swift is quickly becoming a universal language.
Swift may have lots of adoption but it is far away from being an universal language. It is limited by its compatibility kludges towards ObjectiveC which makes it particularly interesting for iOS developers who already know ObjectiveC, but outside of this environment it is of low importance.
The large number of developers proficient with Swift could contribute to Mozilla's code bases, rather than just a small handful of niche developers who know Rust.
The number of developers who know swift may be larger than the number of developers who know rust. But how many only are interested in developing their ios app, and that's it?
A modern web browser written in Swift would be much more useful than a web browser written in Rust.
Swift only has reference counting, nothing more. In fact, only thread safe reference counting. This is a major performance problem, while in Rust you have the choice between all memory models C/C++ have.
And as I mentioned above there have been breaking changes in C++
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I've seen plenty of code from pre-C++98 that doesn't compile on modern compilers, actually. The C++ language and implementations were making incompatible changes until standardization completed, and beyond (mostly because the standard was extremely difficult to implement correctly).
But that's not saying much...
As obsolet as my knowlege in
* Cobol
* K&R C
* Pascal
* Java 1.1
???
You seem not to work in the software industry.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sure but C++98 was 18 YEARS ago. Swift 2.2 was released 4 MONTHS AGO. What a joke.
Cobol, K&R C, Pascal are not obsolete - just no longer widely used. However you are right about Java 1.1, another corporate product. You seem not to be able to grasp what I am talking about here. K&R C was released 40 YEARS AGO. Swift 2.2 was released 4 months ago. Moron!
Because apparently their engineers lack the ability to think far enough ahead to design something that lasts longer than a single coding cycle.
C++ is 30+ years old. Swift 2.2 is 4 MONTHS old and is obsolete. I hope you see the difference here.
Swift is a good idea of how to do things wrong. But what about C#. It's made my Microsoft, who everybody loves to hate, yet C# and the .Net framework is probably one of the best development environments out there. They have a pretty good record of not breaking too many things with new releases. They also do pretty well adding new features that programmers want. I prefer it much more to other languages that aren't controlled by corporations such as PHP, Python, or C++..
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Too bad if you put time into learning Swift 2.0. That knowledge is now obsolete. And when Swift 4.0 comes out, your Swift 3.0 knowledge will be obsolete. My advice to young programmers: avoid languages owned by corporations. They have time and money to waste. You don't.
LOL I take it that you have never looked at C++, an ISO standardized language. Code written in C++98 and C++14 almost appear to be written in different languages.
And actually one of the advantages of a corporate controlled language is you totally avoid the "Designed by committee approach" to things.
You know, I sorta /broadly/ agree, but c'mon - you're comparing differences across 18 years for C++ to differences across 4 months for Swift. Why not compare C++11 and C++14?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
avoid languages owned by corporations
So you suggest C++ is any better? One of the companies at the table which determines the future of C++ is Microsoft, and they want as much lock-in into their OS as possible. This has caused things like multi-threading not appear until 2011, and only on the pressure of other languages as C++. Coding cross platform programs that exceed the simple hello-world in C++ is entirely impossible except for very simple hello-world programs if you don't use libraries. In other languages this is true of course as well, but their std is much larger, and you are less reliant on libraries there. Microsoft does as much as it can to keep std as small as possible so that people get locked into windows.
Also, as the compiler vendor gives you the std in C++, you are locked in into the std implementation of the vendor. This for example means that if you develop anything for consoles like sony, you essentially can't use std.
Seriously, Apple, where's the love?
Sure but C++98 was 18 YEARS ago. Swift 2.2 was released 4 MONTHS AGO. What a joke.
Is that you Donald?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Yes, the newer language should be experiencing much more flux as it is developed. Which, by the way, is exactly what apple told developers to expect.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Apple told developers that Swift 2.2 would be obsolete in 4 months? Wow, and people still used it? How stupid.
You are conflating compilers with language stability. The fact is that Apple could discontinue Swift tomorrow and you would by out of luck. Avoid corporate controlled languages.
I guess the fact that 18 years >> 4 months is lost on you. Oh well, enjoy Swift until Apple gets bored with it and discontinues it and replaces it with something "better".
Yes I am suggesting C++ is a lot better. What the fuck does Microsoft and cross platform have to do with anything?
You can "figure out" things and rewrite your codebase every four months or you can avoid language controlled by a single corporation that changes things at their whim. It is your career I guess.
But is is 2016 now. Why would you choose to go back to 1985 when standardized languages didn't exist? Insane. You can continue to chase Apple around if you want, but if you are a young programmer you are foolish to invest time in some corporations language that they can discontinue at any point.
I guess the fact that 18 years >> 4 months is lost on you.
Obviously you weren't around 18 years ago, otherwise you wouldn't be comparing Apples to Oranges. New languages in their infancy are always in a state of flux.
Oh well, enjoy Swift until Apple gets bored with it and discontinues it and replaces it with something "better".
What, things change? Say it ain't so.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I was around 18 years ago. That is my point: why would you use a language that is in flux and a single corporate entity can control or drop on their whim? And no: things don't have to change every 4 months. But go ahead and waste your time "learning" Swift, Rust, ObjC, etc if you want.
Apple stated when Swift 1.0 was released that it was a work in progress and that there would be a flurry of updates coming and that, while they would maintain binary compatibility, they would not be able to maintain source compatibility as they changed and streamlined the language. Anyone using swift is well aware of this.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
And people still used it? How stupid. I guess Apple was smart not to use it for any of their projects.
I think Rust is only "safer" in theory. In practice, I'm not convinced. The Rust implementation is buggy. I know, because I've experienced such bugs first hand. How can I trust something so buggy to enforce safety? At least Swift doesn't make over-the-top promises. (Compare the Rust web site's insistent claims of "Rust is a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents segfaults, and guarantees thread safety." to the Swift web site's far more plausible claims of "Swift makes it easy to write software that is incredibly fast and safe by design.")
Personally, I don't trust the Rust community, either. Many of its participants seem to be high schoolers or perhaps in their first year or two of college. The Swift community, on the other hand, has many people with decades of industry experience and/or advanced academic degrees. Perhaps this is why I have seen nothing but courtesy and professionalism out of the Swift community members I've interacted with, while I've repeatedly seen immaturity out of Rust community members. The Rust community's worship of the Rust Code of Conduct is very peculiar, for example. It's like software development is secondary to "social justice" for many Rust users.
That list of Rust users you gave isn't very convincing, either. Dropbox, and to a lesser extend Mozilla, are the only ones with any significance. A bunch of no-name startups using Rust means nothing. Meanwhile, we've seen major multinational corporations use Swift.
Swift hits a sweet spot where it's usable for a wide range of low level and high level development, both commercial and open source, while still being a familiar and friendly language, with a great community. Rust, on the other hand, has so far only shown itself to be a painful language, mainly used for weekend projects that are thrown on GitHub and then abandoned, with a questionable community.
Swift's future is looking brighter every day. Swift is clearly the way to go.
What company has time and money to rewrite code every four months?
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
I was around 18 years ago. That is my point: why would you use a language that is in flux and a single corporate entity can control or drop on their whim?
Oh please enlighten me then. What is this magical language that you would have me develop in?
And no: things don't have to change every 4 months.
As stated previously by me and several other people, Apple stated at the outset that Swift would go through syntactical changes until it settled down. But it appears that you think a language needs to spring from the bosom of its creator in a perfect yet fixed, state.
But go ahead and waste your time "learning" Swift, Rust, ObjC, etc if you want.
Knowledge is never wasted.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Microsoft controls the MSVC compiler which is one of the C++ implementations, and this gives microsoft a seat at the table: https://isocpp.org/std/the-com...
Only because C++ has multiple compiler vendors it does not mean that the vendors do not try to do evil stuff with the control they have over the compilers, and therefore over the users. The usual suspect here is always Microsoft.
You may not be locked in into a particular compiler vendor, but as the std is very small you either use the unofficial extensions (and get locked in).
You know generally I share your attitude that you have to distrust single companies (this attitude is really healty!), but in the case of c++ the development is really impaired thanks to each vendor trying to become market leader, they focus more at fighting each other than trying to improve the actual language.
I'm not aware of any good programming language that never required any revision. So you are basically holding Apple to a standard that noone else has ever met before...
But hey, if it makes you feel better about your own miserable life to complain on the internet...
I think the reason you are attracting such replies is that you appear to be completely ignoring the changes in computing since C++ came out. The two are clearly not comparable, as C++ was developed during a time where access to the internet was out of reach of most people. Where languages had to be incredibly stable simply because changes to them could not be disseminated to all affected parties very quickly. Where documentation was in printed books instead of digital. Where transpilers were a lot less effective as they are now. This is just scraping the surface - the differences between then and now are like night and day, yet you made absolutely no reference to them. I think if you accepted that what happened to a relatively low-level language back then might not be particularly relevant to a high-level language now (and maybe calmed down a tad) you might be having more of a discussion and less of an argument.
should the world stop using Python?
And PDP11 ML isn't a programming language, dumbass.
What corporations control Python?
Swift is infected as well: https://swift.org/community/#c...
The claws of the SJWs are sharp and they are drilled deep into the flesh of the software development industry.
But that code of conduct usually only applies to the core project (like the compiler), and many libraries. If you "only" are an user you won't get harassed by any SJW.
C# and the .Net framework is probably one of the best development environments out there.
Add to that the quality of Visual Studio compare to other IDEs. Case in point Xcode can't refactor Swift.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Some minor tweaks added in '89 (from wikipedia): multiple inheritance, abstract classes, static member functions, const member functions, and protected members.
And even later still were added: templates, exceptions, namespaces, new casts, and a boolean type.
C++ underwent way more fundamental changes in its first 10 years than Swift has undergone in its first 2...so maybe we should all just chill out a little bit.
C++ relies on the C preprocessor, which is very limited, on doing macros.
C++ has type-safe and/or scoped alternatives to a lot of things that used to need C macros.
Thanks to this you don't have scoped macros for example.
C++ has namespaced templates.
In rust the macro system is done much later in the process, so that you can declare a macro inside a function, and after the } closing brace the macro scope ends!
In modern C++, you can likewise declare a lambda inside a function (example). This could replace the C-inspired use of macros as ghetto inline functions.
So you are saying my PDP11 ML knowledge isn't obsolete?
Different people define "obsolete" in different ways. I might feel justified in calling my 6502 assembly language knowledge not obsolete because just last year I found work as lead programmer for a project using it.
it is a warning to avoid languages controlled by a single corporate entity.
Which non-retro ISA isn't controlled by one company or a small handful thereof? ARM is controlled by ARM Ltd., and x86-64 is controlled by the Intel/AMD cartel. This leaves what? An older version of MIPS that Loongson processor adopted?
Apple could discontinue Swift tomorrow and you would by out of luck.
Unless someone else takes up maintainership of a fork of Swift under the Apache License.
but rust is a far more "safe" language than Swift is.
Rust has been infected with cancer of SJW's and a stupidly crazy code of conduct. All the good developers will leave soon, driven away by the anti-meritocracists.
I'm no SJW; far from it. But Slashdot could do worse than to adopt at least some of those "Stupidly Crazy" Code of Conduct rules.
None of their products work well. They're all hopelessly out of date. Why would anyone ever use Swift? Java is far superior.
God DAMN!!!
Some people will even bitch when somebody GIVES them something!!!
Now go crawl back under your slime-encrusted rock and DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE!!!!
You are not worth wasting the planet's oxygen.
Is anybody going to bite on a new proprietary language? Have we not learned anything from what Oracle has done with Java?
Perhaps a nicer way to express it might have been "As of right now, this language is too unstable for me to use in production. I'll let others be the guinea pigs until it matures."
Different people define "obsolete" in different ways. I might feel justified in calling my 6502 assembly language knowledge not obsolete because just last year I found work as lead programmer for a project using it [3dcartstores.com].
Hey! I read somewhere a few years ago that the 6502 is/was the most popular CPU core in application-specific ICs. Might not be true anymore, but you don't exactly need a 32 bit ARM for a LOT of things even now, and PICs are too pricey for a lot of applications.
Plus, there isn't a more "accessible" ML than the 650x instruction set.
What corporations control Python?
I can think of two possibilities: Python Software Foundation Inc. and Dropbox, which employs Python BDFL Guido van Rossum.
So, I'm not able to maintain my Swift 2.2 code anymore just because Swift 3.0 or 4.0 is out?
Strange, I had assumed my old Swift 2.2 compiler just runs as usually.
What strange Computers are you working on that old Compilers suddenly stop working?
Moron? Again so insulting ... you suffer from an ulkur or something?
However you are right about Java 1.1, another corporate product. :D
You missquote me. My Java 1.1 knowledge is still needed for maintaining legacy code, just as my rudimentary Cobol knowledge
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Apple developers are probably used to the abuse by this point considering that the Mac itself has undergone three architecture changes as they moved from the Motorola 68000 to IBM PowerPC and then to x86. I wouldn't be surprised if in another five years they've completed abandoned x86 and move to using their own ARM SoC designs for all of their products.
It's not abuse; it's evolution, and Apple, it's development community (assisted in no small measure by some VERY clever tools and APIs by Apple), and it's OSes have done a FANTASTIC job of making those transitions nearly painless for the average Mac user.
Can you imagine the clusterfuck that would ensue if MS tried to do that with Windows? Hell, they couldn't even do a transition from 32 bit to 64 bit ON THE SAME CPU without a bunch of bullshit THAT AFFECTS THE USER (separate 32 and 64 bit OSes, APIs, Drivers, Apps, etc). WHAT a CLUSTER!!!
To my knowledge, The only time that kind of BS affects a Mac user is with AU plugins. And there are "wrappers" that in most cases can handle even that without involving a recompile or redesign of the plugin.
True, but relatively speaking, the change overs weren't completely horrific. The 68K and Mac OS 9 emulation stuck around for quite a while before being dropped. The "Universal apps" were also quite a clever use of NeXT's tech with multi-arch binaries.
I think you can STILL run Carbon Apps (as long as they are at least universal binary), even though Carbon has been deprecated for SEVERAL years now.
C++ is 30+ years old. Swift 2.2 is 4 MONTHS old and is obsolete. I hope you see the difference here.
Yes, C++ is mature (God help it). Swift is still evolving.
Not everyone is a lazy shit. It takes about 5 minutes to update a moderately-sized code base from 2.2 to 3.0 syntax. Xcode provides a built-in tool to do it for you, and you just have to fix up the few cases it doesn't find on its own. It's really trivial for anyone who isn't a spoon-fed piece of dirt.
Today I learned that SJW means 'civility'.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
After they gave up being a hardware box vendor, NeXT was more cross platform than many people give them credit for. I have a NeXTStep Os installer CD set for HP's PA-RISC.
Discontinue? They open-sourced the standard library, not to mention the compiler. If someone wants to use it, they can, no matter what Apple does with it.
If by "rewrite" you mean "spend 5 minutes using the built-in Xcode wizard", I guess just about the entire world. It's a shame you choose to be a degenerate shit.
I just looked at this "stupidly crazy" code of conduct. Can you point out the stupid and crazy parts for me? Because for the life of me, I fail to see how these points are all that controversial:
Translation: "We believe in being cool to other people, and don't bully or pick on them like a bunch of twats." Seems reasonable.
Translation: "Your choice of RapinUrButt as an IRC nick suggests you're a puerile buffoon. We'd like you to not behave that way." Seems reasonable.
Translation: "Don't be a dick." Seems reasonable.
Translation: "Remember that design decisions come with tradeoffs, and don't be a jerk because somebody valued the trade-offs differently than you might have." Seems reasonable. If you disagree with a design decision, you can certainly debate the relative weights of the tradeoffs chosen, but there's no need to disrespect someone for making decisions differently than you might have.
Translation: "Code talks, bullshit walks. If you have an idea, implement it, don't just carp on endlessly about how something sucks and should be fixed." Again - reasonable.
Translation: "If you're an asshole, you're not welcome here." Again, reasonable.
Translation: "If you're an asshole to other people in private channels, you're not welcome here." Guess what? Reasonable!
Translation: "One last time, don't be an asshole." And guess what, that's reasonable too.
I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that this code of conduct is controversial - have you actually read it?
One could argue that M6800 is a nicer arcitecture to code for, but 6800 is a dead architecture. M6809 is better than 6502, too, but another dead architecture.
Microsoft gives us Windows 10.
I want to try Swift on my NetBSD system. Where is the source tarball for this "free" language they're giving away?
So this language is so "open" that it's only usable within Xcode? It sounds like a small world propritary deal.
The set of things classified as a "revision" is obviously a superset of things classified as "breaking change". If you stay out of the "breaking change" category (e.g. only new syntax that did not previously compile) then it isn't a problem.
Yes, there are plenty of language updates which do not break existing code. When they do, many language design teams strive to limit any breaking changes to concepts that are only used by a very small number of people, or bugs which result in undocumented behaviors that very few or no developers rely on.
Then there's the case at hand, which sounds like nearly all existing code will break in some way. It's completely different.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
So, I'm not able to maintain my Swift 2.2 code anymore just because Swift 3.0 or 4.0 is out?
Strange, I had assumed my old Swift 2.2 compiler just runs as usually.
Well Xcode 7 only came with a Swift 2 compiler, so you could not maintain Swift 1 code with that version. I assume that once Swift 3 is officially out that Xcode will pull a similar trick regarding Swift 2.x
However Apple does supply migration tools that the "person" you are replying too is seeming to totally ignore.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If this is too burdensome for you, then perhaps you need to get off your phone and listen to the teacher, there may be a long division test tomorrow.
I'm sure the adults won't mind waiting a few years until you claim your adulthood.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
So this language is so "open" that it's only usable within Xcode? It sounds like a small world propritary deal.
And 5 seconds on google finds Introduction to Open source Swift on Linux
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Very articulate, coward.
Swift is infected as well: https://swift.org/community/#c...
I'm about as anti-Social Justice Whiner as they come, but I don't really see anything to object to in the code of conduct posted above.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Ah yes. The 'your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerant' card.
Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be? Or merely a troll?
It's perfectly usable outside of XCode.
Have other languages made the syntax incompatible on each version?
Compatibility was broken between Python 2 and Python 3 to clean up the language. For example, print "Text" in Python 2 got replaced by print("Text") in Python 3.
The Rust implementation is buggy. I know, because I've experienced such bugs first hand.
Can you tell me about the bugs you experienced, and the projects you've tried to do with Rust? There is a troll on slashdot who uses this same argument, and that troll is a bit unfounded.
while still being a familiar and friendly language
The examples of swift I saw don't really seem friendly to me. But I can't judge Swift's friendliness as I haven't programmed with swift.
Rust, on the other hand, has so far only shown itself to be a painful language
I haven't coded much in Rust myself, but it didn't feel painful. Yes, there is a high entry barrier due to the many compiler checks, but its generally feeling not painful for me. idk, I'm a person of the type "there can't be enough compiler checks", so I am feeling quite well with the checks the Rust compiler does.
One could argue that M6800 is a nicer arcitecture to code for, but 6800 is a dead architecture. M6809 is better than 6502, too, but another dead architecture.
Wow! FINALLY something we can agree on, LOL!!! Mark this date on your calendar!!!
I LOVE the 6809. It's more like a miniature 68k in some respects than a beefed-up 6800. I just wish it had caught on as a core for Mot.'s MCUs, rather than the pissant 6801 core they used in the 6805 and HC11 series.
I have written tens and tens of thousands of lines of Assembly code for all of those cores, and even modified a popular Apple ][ 6502 assembler to cross-assemble 6809 (and later, even 8085) code.
Good times, good times...
I write applications (big ones) for OS X using c and c++. Targeting 10.6.8, my code still works fine under 10.11 today. It ports to Windows easily as well. Re Windows, targeting XP, it all works right up to the current version of Windows. XP broke the OS windowing metrics, otherwise my stuff would still work with Win98. :) Apple hasn't done anything quite that stupid. Well, yet. 10.6.8 is where 64-bit code began to work; and it's the last OS X that supports PPC (my HP calculator emulation, bunch of audio drivers, my old mame (which is actually fairly important to me, because some of those games are my code, and code from close friends in the day, and I want that stuff to work as long as possible), all kinds of stuff in Appleworks, etc., etc. So 10.6.8 is where I planted my flag, so to speak.
Of course if you decide Swift or Objective C is your chosen coding mechanism, that's fine, but there's no externally imposed requirement that it must be your coding mechanism; at the worst, a few boilerplate intermediate layers based on basic OS APIs will do ya.
Sometimes -- for instance, with Apple's OS file dialogs -- the stuff Apple supplies is either broken, feature-poor, or both. After being bitten over and over by that stupid file dialog, I spent an afternoon and wrote my own. Which works a damn sight better, and faster, and with less hangups than Apple's does. My users benefit a great deal from my unwillingness to let Apple screw them with the bug-infested trail of tears they leave behind them as they blunder onwards into their new and shinier future.
Same thing for most (all?) of Apple and Microsoft's "new and shiny." For every new thing you decide you depend on in the OS, you're leaving users behind, and making your code more and more dependent upon Apple's latest whim.
Which, again, you can do, absolutely -- but you don't have to.
Almost every time I see some application that "requires" some fairly late version of an operating system, I think dark thoughts. There are few things, particularly things that are focused upon new features, where it is likely reasonable. But mostly... not. Mostly it's just thoughtless development where the user takes a back seat to... let's face it: "shiny."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The primary one is that Rust and Swift serve different purposes. Swift is an application programming language primarily for mobile apps and Rust is a systems programming language primarily for services, IoT, drones and so on. Swift sacrifices performance for convenience. Rust sacrifices convenience for performance. They could be used in each other's place but not without bringing baggage with them. A simple example of that Rust tracks and enforces most lifetimes at compile time - it knows when you're not using an object any more and inserts code to delete it. But it will kick your ass if you don't do things exactly how it likes. Swift uses automatic reference counting which means object an additional runtime cost but it's more forgiving and easier to work with. On a more practical level Rust runs and works on Windows, Linux and Mac and has a burgeoning number of libraries and projects whereas Swift is mostly Mac with some token cross platform thrown out there but not much else yet.
Secondly, for C++, I don't see that it can ever fix the basic problem that it is dangerous by default. It's easy to corrupt or leak memory. It could grow directives or classes which define lifetimes or ownership information but it doesn't solve the problem of bad / dangerous code that already exists or new code that ignores these directives. That isn't to say C++ is going away soon but someone writing something that needs to be safety critical, or scalable, or reliable might think twice about using it.
Python 3 is not Python specifically because it will not run Python 2 code. Python 3 isn't just a "little" different. It's a lot different. Which is fine. Although they should have called it something other than Python, frankly, because it confuses a lot of people that Python != Python. Justifiably so.
Swift appears to be undergoing the exact same schism. The new Swift is not the old Swift; if it breaks your compliant code, it's a new language. If it breaks some undocumented crap, that's something else entirely. But when you write to spec, and the New/Shiny won't run it -- that's an entirely new language, regardless of what little, or lot, remains syntax compatible. Swift != Swift.
Python's 2-series remains 100% viable; the source code is out there. Dunno about Swift; I code Python all the time, haven't bothered with Swift (nor am I ever likely to.)
My insignificant little message to all language designers is this: Once you make a spec beyond beta, if you break the spec, you're developing an entirely new language, and you should REALLY change the damned name.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
LDA year ; offset from 1900
CMP #115
BGE 75
Or something.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
When did you do your project? Was it before Rust 1.0 came out in May 2015? I've done Rust only after that time, and it worked fine. Yes, Rust may be far from finished, but I only got an ICE only once.
I'm in so far lucky that I did not start using Swift yet.
However I'm watching the evolution of the language as I'm very convinced that we need languages that are "less expressive" (see C++ / PERL etc.) but more readable and more comprehendible (which makes them easier to teach, too).
Now remove "." and "(" and ")" ... and we are close to SmallTalk.
Why Swift 3.0 is writing:
someObject.method(arg:"is it", arg2:"really", arg3:"cool?");
When you could write it:
someObject method arg:"is it", arg2:"really", arg3:"cool?"
Is a bit hard to grasp.
Bottom line Apple should probably rather invent its own VM ... probably based on LLVM, and open it to any compiler/language that compiles to it.
Reminds me that I wanted to start a blog about the future of programming as I see it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Right. And it took, what, 15 years for Python to accumulate enough cruft that they decided to do this kind of major breaking milestone?
Here, we're talking about a language that isn't even 2 years old.
Rust doesn't try to actively present itself as stable and production-ready, though.
Your C++ experience seems to be very dated. These days, you can easily write very complicated C++ programs using solely the standard library and Boost.
The standard library may be small, but why does it mean that you have to use "unofficial extensions"? You find and use third-party libraries, and your portability is only limited by them - and there is no shortage of portable libraries for practically any purpose for C++. Heck, Qt alone covers 99% of what you'd typically want to do.
Because Julia is a language focused on a very specific thing, and that very specific thing is not UI and other stuff that is common in a typical desktop or mobile app.
Well the fact that these third party libraries are doing so well is just a proof that the std library sucks badly. Not in a way you wouln't want to use it though -- its working really great in fact, just that it misses so many things. But the libraries are also not as polished as std is, and with them you are under "corporate" control again, something 110010001000 wanted to avoid, no?
You're only under "corporate control" if the library you're using is 1) maintained entirely by a single corporate entity, and 2) is not open source.
Boost, for example, is entirely open source and lacks any centralized control. Qt has a company behind it, but the source is LGPL, so you can always fork if you need to. And so on.
Pragmatically speaking, unless you use OS APIs directly (like, say, Win32), it's very hard to lock yourself in with C++.
Well swift and rust as well as java (I think the only three corporate controlled languages 110010001000 used as example) are all open source as well. Still they are under corporate control.
LDA year ; offset from 1900
CMP #115
BGE 75
Or something.
BGE was actually NOT a 6502 mnemonic. It was a 6809 instruction (and maybe 6800). But some 6502 assemblers had a BGE macro, IIRC. It translates to BCS (Branch on Carry Set).
There is a big difference between the language, and the library. In any sane ecosystem (where things aren't deprecated and removed every six months), libraries keep working for a very long time - so it is viable to fork one and just use it. Having to fork the compiler and the rest of the toolchain (IDEs etc) is a lot more work.
You are conflating compilers with language stability. The fact is that Apple could discontinue Swift tomorrow and you would by out of luck. Avoid corporate controlled languages.
FFS, what "Corporate Control"???
Did you miss the part where Apple OPEN SOURCED Swift, and basically dumped the ENTIRE Project on GitHub???
JEEZUS, you're stupid.
Apple told developers that Swift 2.2 would be obsolete in 4 months? Wow, and people still used it? How stupid.
So, when some random FOSS project by some neckbeards releases a bunch of updates in short order they're "in active development"; bug when Apple does it, they're The Great Satan?!?
I guess the fact that 18 years >> 4 months is lost on you. Oh well, enjoy Swift until Apple gets bored with it and discontinues it and replaces it with something "better".
Apple isn't Google. In oh, so many ways (thank Diety).
Yes I am suggesting C++ is a lot better. What the fuck does Microsoft and cross platform have to do with anything?
A lot better than what? A kick in the teeth? Yeah, probably; but only just...
C++ ain't all that. Actually it was INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED AS A PRANK. In fact, according to the Father of C++ Bjarne Stroustrup, the joke's on YOU...
So, enjoy your PRANK of a Language, Suckas!!!!
It started out as "C with classes" in 1979 and by 1985 there was a book called "The C++ Programming Language".
There were lots of code-breaking changes between 1979 and 1985, it just wasn't a widely used language at the time.
Yes I am suggesting C++ is a lot better. What the fuck does Microsoft and cross platform have to do with anything?
A lot better than what? A kick in the teeth? Yeah, probably; but only just... C++ ain't all that. Actually it was INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED AS A PRANK. In fact, according to the Father of C++ Bjarne Stroustrup, the joke's on YOU... So, enjoy your PRANK of a Language, Suckas!!!!
Ok, so I'll "out" myself before anyone else does...
The "IEEE" interview linked-to above is (well, duh!) a FAKE!
Gas Music From Jupiter, INDEED!!!
But according to the "horse's" website, HERE IS THE REAL INTERVIEW.
Or is it...? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
There were C++ implementations going all the way back to the early 1980s. Do you really think it was a programming language on paper only for 20 years?
Yes, they still used it. Just like they still used 8086 assembler back in the day when they knew 16 bit and 32 bit was coming and just like they used Word v1 knowing that v2 would come soon.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
I had to upgrade a not-too-big codebase from Rails 2 to Rails 4 a few months ago. That was a looooot of work. Swift 2-3 is a joke. The moaners here will moan. Besides, this sort of stuff keep us in work!
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
At least your PDP skills are not obsolete:
http://www.vcfed.org/forum/sho...
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
But some 6502 assemblers had a BGE macro, IIRC. It translates to BCS (Branch on Carry Set).
Furthermore, the datasheet for the WDC 65816 encouraged assemblers to include this macro.
But some 6502 assemblers had a BGE macro, IIRC. It translates to BCS (Branch on Carry Set).
Furthermore, the datasheet for the WDC 65816 encouraged assemblers to include this macro.
Interesting.
I actually put the 8-bit-bus version of the WDC 65816 (can't remember the exact p/n (65802?)) in my Apple ][+, and, IIRC, defined macros in the Orca/M assembler (which I really didn't like) for it.
I also have an AppleIIgs that I bought off eBay for some paltry sum. Don't those have '816s in them, too?
Apple IIGS and Super Nintendo Entertainment System are probably the best-known consumer products with a 65816. The IIGS has a standalone '816; the Super NES has a Ricoh 5A22, which puts a licensed '816 core on the same die as a custom memory controller for the DMA functionality that kept pace with Sega's "Blast Processing".
Apple IIGS and Super Nintendo Entertainment System are probably the best-known consumer products with a 65816. The IIGS has a standalone '816; the Super NES has a Ricoh 5A22, which puts a licensed '816 core on the same die as a custom memory controller for the DMA functionality that kept pace with Sega's "Blast Processing".
Oh yeah. I forgot about the Super NES having an '816, and I didn't know that Ricoh had done a CSIC with the '816 core. Fascinating!