5 ms·

Swift for Windows

43 points by chrisamanse 10y ago

marvel_boy 10y ago
Newbie here. How is this possible? I guess that most of the libraries UIKit,.. are only available on MacOS and Unix. How can this run on Windows?
- wsc981 10y ago
  It runs without most of the libraries. The Linux version of Swift doesn't have AppKit / UIKit either.
- chrisamanse 10y ago
  This is just Swift :) It does not include the UIKit or AppKit framework. Not yet at least. Let's hope that Apple open source them too.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    Apple should drop the bomb at WWDC and announce macOS as open source.
    - untog 10y ago
      Hah. I'm sure they'll do it just after they finally open up iMessage.
      - Razengan 10y ago
        Their online tech, bundled apps, and the Aqua GUI style don't need to be opened up for macOS* itself + the Kits + Finder to be open sourced. If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can. It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release custom "distros" of it, say with an up-to-date OpenGL, or even a Wine/DirectX emulation layer baked in so we can just double-click on any .exe and have it run natively. * As I'm assuming/hoping it's going to be called starting June 13. They could open source "OS X" while keeping the "macOS" brandname for themselves.
        untog 10y ago
        My point is that Apple has no interest in doing any of that. > If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can. But Apple would lose a huge amount of money on hardware sales, which is where they make their money. Apple even tried an approved clones program in the 90s, it was a miserable failure and one of the first things Jobs did on his return was kill it. > It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release custom "distros" of it Which Apple really wouldn't want. One of the selling points of OS X is the lack of variation in both software and hardware.
        pcwalton 10y ago
        I completely agree with all your points, but to be fair iOS dominates desktop Mac in terms of revenue to begin with ($51B iPhone + $7B iPad vs. $7B Mac). That's reflected in the fact that Apple continues to open source XNU on desktop (granted, not in anywhere near approaching an open-process, or complete, manner) but not on mobile. Apple has historically been more willing to open source things they don't make money on (e.g. LLVM and Swift). Seven billion dollars is a far cry from zero revenue, but it's an interesting trend nonetheless.
        Razengan 10y ago
        Many people who like Macs will continue to buy Macs even if OS X was freely available on other PCs, and OS X would continue to indirectly generate revenue for Apple even after it were open-sourced: For one, many more people will have access to the Mac App Store and the iBook Store, leading to increased sales for apps like Final Cut and Logic. There'll be many more potential customers for their iCloud Drive storage plans. Last but not least, it will drastically lower barriers for iOS/tvOS/watchOS development as people will be able to develop on any PC they want, not to mention it would increase the pool of people making native Mac apps as well. Apple can still differentiate Macs through their hardware, things like their pressure-sensitive trackpads, form factor and by keeping bundled apps (like Photos and stuff) closed-source and exclusive to Macs.
        10y ago
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - copperx 10y ago
    But it does have things like NSArray, right?
    - magnumkarter 10y ago
      There is an open source version of Foundation, so I don't see why not
      - copperx 10y ago
        Do you mean GNUStep?
        magnumkarter 10y ago
        Yes I do, Also Swift 3.0 is supposed to ship Foundation. https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation
ah- 10y ago
Codeplex still exists?
kybernetyk 10y ago
That's great. Now we need a UI framework :)
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Can you dynamically load DLLs? If so, there's your UI kit (sortove).
- Maarten88 10y ago
  Maybe it'd be possible to use code from the Microsoft iOS to Windows bridge? It's for objective c, but it bridges UIkit to UWP controls... https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/master/Frameworks/UIKit https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/master/Frameworks/...

43 points by chrisamanse 10y ago

Newbie here. How is this possible? I guess that most of the libraries UIKit,.. are only available on MacOS and Unix. How can this run on Windows?

wsc981 10y ago
It runs without most of the libraries. The Linux version of Swift doesn't have AppKit / UIKit either.
chrisamanse 10y ago
This is just Swift :) It does not include the UIKit or AppKit framework. Not yet at least. Let's hope that Apple open source them too.
- Razengan 10y ago
  Apple should drop the bomb at WWDC and announce macOS as open source.
  - untog 10y ago
    Hah. I'm sure they'll do it just after they finally open up iMessage.
    - Razengan 10y ago
      Their online tech, bundled apps, and the Aqua GUI style don't need to be opened up for macOS* itself + the Kits + Finder to be open sourced. If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can. It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release custom "distros" of it, say with an up-to-date OpenGL, or even a Wine/DirectX emulation layer baked in so we can just double-click on any .exe and have it run natively. * As I'm assuming/hoping it's going to be called starting June 13. They could open source "OS X" while keeping the "macOS" brandname for themselves.
      - untog 10y ago
        My point is that Apple has no interest in doing any of that. > If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can. But Apple would lose a huge amount of money on hardware sales, which is where they make their money. Apple even tried an approved clones program in the 90s, it was a miserable failure and one of the first things Jobs did on his return was kill it. > It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release custom "distros" of it Which Apple really wouldn't want. One of the selling points of OS X is the lack of variation in both software and hardware.
        pcwalton 10y ago
        I completely agree with all your points, but to be fair iOS dominates desktop Mac in terms of revenue to begin with ($51B iPhone + $7B iPad vs. $7B Mac). That's reflected in the fact that Apple continues to open source XNU on desktop (granted, not in anywhere near approaching an open-process, or complete, manner) but not on mobile. Apple has historically been more willing to open source things they don't make money on (e.g. LLVM and Swift). Seven billion dollars is a far cry from zero revenue, but it's an interesting trend nonetheless.
        Razengan 10y ago
        Many people who like Macs will continue to buy Macs even if OS X was freely available on other PCs, and OS X would continue to indirectly generate revenue for Apple even after it were open-sourced: For one, many more people will have access to the Mac App Store and the iBook Store, leading to increased sales for apps like Final Cut and Logic. There'll be many more potential customers for their iCloud Drive storage plans. Last but not least, it will drastically lower barriers for iOS/tvOS/watchOS development as people will be able to develop on any PC they want, not to mention it would increase the pool of people making native Mac apps as well. Apple can still differentiate Macs through their hardware, things like their pressure-sensitive trackpads, form factor and by keeping bundled apps (like Photos and stuff) closed-source and exclusive to Macs.
        10y ago
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- copperx 10y ago
  But it does have things like NSArray, right?
  - magnumkarter 10y ago
    There is an open source version of Foundation, so I don't see why not
    - copperx 10y ago
      Do you mean GNUStep?
      - magnumkarter 10y ago
        Yes I do, Also Swift 3.0 is supposed to ship Foundation. https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation

ah- 10y ago

Codeplex still exists?

kybernetyk 10y ago

That's great. Now we need a UI framework :)

colejohnson66 10y ago
Can you dynamically load DLLs? If so, there's your UI kit (sortove).
Maarten88 10y ago
Maybe it'd be possible to use code from the Microsoft iOS to Windows bridge? It's for objective c, but it bridges UIkit to UWP controls... https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/master/Frameworks/UIKit https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/master/Frameworks/...