6 ms·

It's worth noting that wider support (including official Windows support) is a stated goal of the next language version: https://swift.org/blog/5-3-release-pro

by skohan 6y ago

It's worth noting that wider support (including official Windows support) is a stated goal of the next language version: https://swift.org/blog/5-3-release-process/ https://swift.org/blog/5-3-release-process/

pjmlp 6y ago
That is just a tiny step, when the majority of available libraries only have the Apple eco-system in mind. Swift is a very nice language, but one is better served with it if their main market is Apple platforms. Just like .NET Core, regardless of how much commitment Microsoft is putting into it, remains a subset of the .NET community at large, the so called dark matter developers.
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  The nature of Open Source means that any interested party contributes to the project the features it is interested in. Apple is interested in running Swift on OSX and iOS. Goolge is interested in running Swift on Linux servers to do to Machine Learning. Windows support has to come from whomever is interested in it. Neither Apple nor Google have a big interest in that. Same with other stuff. I, for example, am interested in using Swift with GTK+. I don't expect Apple or Google to work on that.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Google's interest on Swift isn't that much reflected outside when Tensorflow 2020 conference did not spend 1 second on Swift, not even to write a tiny status update blog post. Yet they had enough C++, Android, Python and JavaScript to talk about. C++, Python, Julia, R own Machine Learning. I don't miss Swift on Windows, the JVM and .NET stacks offer plenty of choice, including better GPGPU support across multiple OSes.
    - AlphaSite 6y ago
      I think it died the moment Chris Latterner left.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >The nature of Open Source means that any interested party contributes to the project the features it is interested in Yes, but the reality of Open Source is that unless money are paid, it often goes nowhere for big projects (that need lots of work to port/create libs/etc).
    - turbinerneiter 6y ago
      How is that a _but_ to my comment? The interested party is the one who pays for the development of the feature they want, mostly by paying a developer to do it.
      - Redoubts 6y ago
        The "but" is that a million developers somewhat interested in the language but for the lack of platform support wouldn't sum to a relevant interest. I think that's a shame, but still truth.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >How is that a _but_ to my comment? You wrote: "The nature of Open Source means that any interested party contributes to the project the features it is interested in" And my comment essentially means: Yeah, BUT this "nature of Open Source" is just a mere potentiality. The fact that FOSS allows "any interested party can contribute" means nothing if there's no interested party with deep pockets (or time/skill to contribute).
        turbinerneiter 6y ago
        I wasn't trying to say that FOSS _allows_ for anyone to contribute but that it _relies_ on that. I was trying to make the point that Swift will be good for the things that the parties who are interested in it need it for. And these interested parties are the deep pockets you are talking about. We might just be saying the same thing :)
- skohan 6y ago
  Why is the relative size of the apple-oriented community relevant? I'm not saying it's the current status quo, but if the server-side Swift community reaches a critical mass where it's easy to get support, and there are plenty of libraries available, it doesn't matter one bit if the iPhone developer community is still 10x larger. This would be like saying coconut is unsuitable for use in pina colladas because it's much more prevalent as an ingredient in curry.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Because a language is not an island and the competition is tough. Anyone betting their money on Server side Swift better have a solid story to sell to upper management, why they did not went with Go, Java, .NET, C++20, Rust, OCaml, ..... Right now the only solid story is for Apple shops to share their client code with the server.
    - skohan 6y ago
      ROR made Ruby into a mainstream language from a single success story and a usable tool. Swift already has a much bigger developer base, there's no reason it couldn't succeed in other markets as well given the right catalyst.
      - mantap 6y ago
        Apple has a bigger developer base but they are captive users. I'm not saying swift isn't good, but nobody actually chooses to use it. They use because it is the language for making iDevice apps. The problem is that if people are only using a language because they have to, then they are not as incentivised to create the open source projects that swift needs. Ruby had a large number of very enthusiastic users, that's what made the difference.
        skohan 6y ago
        I think you're describing a chicken-and-egg problem, and you're overstating the extent to which a gap exists in terms of library support. Swift has a very capable standard library, a high-quality, officially supported networking library, and fantastic C and Python interop which can fill a lot of the gaps to the extent they exist. Even in its current state, I can imagine Swift being productive in something like server-less development, where it would offer a nice strongly typed alternative to scripting languages which currently dominate the space. Swift has a lot of intrinsic features which would make it nice to use for server-side development, and I'm sure it would find plenty of users if there were a strong success story to point to. Given the number of users, I'm not convinced the absolute number of Ruby users in 2009 was larger than the number of "swift enthusiasts" today.
ceo_tim_crook 6y ago
swift always feels years behind, I'm not convinced they will ever get the basics right outside of ever shrinking apple land

by skohan 6y ago

pjmlp 6y ago

That is just a tiny step, when the majority of available libraries only have the Apple eco-system in mind. Swift is a very nice language, but one is better served with it if their main market is Apple platforms. Just like .NET Core, regardless of how much commitment Microsoft is putting into it, remains a subset of the .NET community at large, the so called dark matter developers.

turbinerneiter 6y ago
The nature of Open Source means that any interested party contributes to the project the features it is interested in. Apple is interested in running Swift on OSX and iOS. Goolge is interested in running Swift on Linux servers to do to Machine Learning. Windows support has to come from whomever is interested in it. Neither Apple nor Google have a big interest in that. Same with other stuff. I, for example, am interested in using Swift with GTK+. I don't expect Apple or Google to work on that.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Google's interest on Swift isn't that much reflected outside when Tensorflow 2020 conference did not spend 1 second on Swift, not even to write a tiny status update blog post. Yet they had enough C++, Android, Python and JavaScript to talk about. C++, Python, Julia, R own Machine Learning. I don't miss Swift on Windows, the JVM and .NET stacks offer plenty of choice, including better GPGPU support across multiple OSes.
  - AlphaSite 6y ago
    I think it died the moment Chris Latterner left.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The nature of Open Source means that any interested party contributes to the project the features it is interested in Yes, but the reality of Open Source is that unless money are paid, it often goes nowhere for big projects (that need lots of work to port/create libs/etc).
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    How is that a _but_ to my comment? The interested party is the one who pays for the development of the feature they want, mostly by paying a developer to do it.
    - Redoubts 6y ago
      The "but" is that a million developers somewhat interested in the language but for the lack of platform support wouldn't sum to a relevant interest. I think that's a shame, but still truth.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >How is that a _but_ to my comment? You wrote: "The nature of Open Source means that any interested party contributes to the project the features it is interested in" And my comment essentially means: Yeah, BUT this "nature of Open Source" is just a mere potentiality. The fact that FOSS allows "any interested party can contribute" means nothing if there's no interested party with deep pockets (or time/skill to contribute).
      - turbinerneiter 6y ago
        I wasn't trying to say that FOSS _allows_ for anyone to contribute but that it _relies_ on that. I was trying to make the point that Swift will be good for the things that the parties who are interested in it need it for. And these interested parties are the deep pockets you are talking about. We might just be saying the same thing :)
skohan 6y ago
Why is the relative size of the apple-oriented community relevant? I'm not saying it's the current status quo, but if the server-side Swift community reaches a critical mass where it's easy to get support, and there are plenty of libraries available, it doesn't matter one bit if the iPhone developer community is still 10x larger. This would be like saying coconut is unsuitable for use in pina colladas because it's much more prevalent as an ingredient in curry.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Because a language is not an island and the competition is tough. Anyone betting their money on Server side Swift better have a solid story to sell to upper management, why they did not went with Go, Java, .NET, C++20, Rust, OCaml, ..... Right now the only solid story is for Apple shops to share their client code with the server.
  - skohan 6y ago
    ROR made Ruby into a mainstream language from a single success story and a usable tool. Swift already has a much bigger developer base, there's no reason it couldn't succeed in other markets as well given the right catalyst.
    - mantap 6y ago
      Apple has a bigger developer base but they are captive users. I'm not saying swift isn't good, but nobody actually chooses to use it. They use because it is the language for making iDevice apps. The problem is that if people are only using a language because they have to, then they are not as incentivised to create the open source projects that swift needs. Ruby had a large number of very enthusiastic users, that's what made the difference.
      - skohan 6y ago
        I think you're describing a chicken-and-egg problem, and you're overstating the extent to which a gap exists in terms of library support. Swift has a very capable standard library, a high-quality, officially supported networking library, and fantastic C and Python interop which can fill a lot of the gaps to the extent they exist. Even in its current state, I can imagine Swift being productive in something like server-less development, where it would offer a nice strongly typed alternative to scripting languages which currently dominate the space. Swift has a lot of intrinsic features which would make it nice to use for server-side development, and I'm sure it would find plenty of users if there were a strong success story to point to. Given the number of users, I'm not convinced the absolute number of Ruby users in 2009 was larger than the number of "swift enthusiasts" today.

ceo_tim_crook 6y ago

swift always feels years behind, I'm not convinced they will ever get the basics right outside of ever shrinking apple land