4 ms·

I think people are deceived by Swift's syntax. It looks simple by syntactic sugar, but it's not actually any more approachable than other systems languages like

I think people are deceived by Swift's syntax. It looks simple by syntactic sugar, but it's not actually any more approachable than other systems languages like C# or Java. Given that a lot of work in ML is exploratory, it doesn't seem like a good fit compared to a hackable scripting language like Python. I would bet against SwiftUI for similar reasons.

socialdemocrat 6y ago
The syntax makes sense in an Objective-C setting because it was matching Smalltalk. It is a very nice syntax for object-oriented programming. But for functional programming it is a terrible syntax, and I think Swift kind of missed the boat on this. I think they should have pushed the replacement to Objective-C into a far more Smalltalk oriented direction as that is what the ecosystem and syntax was really tailored towards. I do a lot of functional style programming in Julia today, but I also love how Smalltalk works. There is a place for both styles. Swift IMHO is the worst of both worlds. This very OO style syntax mixed in with functional programming makes everything kind of messy. I easily get confused when looking at Swift code for this reason. When you use anonymous functions, you don't want named arguments. That is an idiotic idea. However if you want to pass a message to a random object, then named arguments is quite nice. I feel Chris Lattner is not a guy who could really appreciate the Smalltalk heritage of Objective-C.