5 ms·

I take it you're not a big fan of Swift, but there's little need to veer over into borderline conspiracy theories. I do think Apple is honestly committed to Sw

• grishka 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of these "smart" languages in general. I'm one of those who believes that the syntax of the language itself should be dumb, but all the smarts should be in the standard library. Like in Java for example. It's much easier to reason about what the code actually does when the language is dumb and calls into its standard library are explicit. It's bad when some benign-looking syntactic constructs trigger some kind of complex behavior. They might be committed to it, but I'm doubtful that it's at all possible to write e.g. parts of the kernel in it. And maybe, just maybe, they should direct all their efforts toward rewriting the OS in a safer language instead of making their UIs uglier with nonsensical paddings and messy-looking icons that pretend that there's no pixel grid.
• pjmlp 5y ago
  Metal and Driver Kit came after Swift, they happen to be written in a mix of C++ and Objective-C, with Swift bindings.
  • smilespray 5y ago
    Fair point. Is it fair to guess that development started before Swift was ready for prime time, and before Apple's own devs of these were up to skill?
    • pjmlp 5y ago
      Only a couple of macOS frameworks are pure Swift, most of them are actually bindings via Objective-C runtime interop.