4 ms·

Wait, is this some kind of a joke? That's swift evolution number seven. They're on hundreds now. That was committed in 2015. This is what, Swift 1.x days? Bef

by zionic 5y ago

Wait, is this some kind of a joke? That's swift evolution number *seven*. They're on hundreds now. That was committed in 2015. This is what, Swift 1.x days? Before? What production code was even using swift back then? The vast majority of people didn't _start_ using swift until 3.x. I know we're supposed to take the best-possible interpretation of someone's comments here, and in my opinion a joke is the best possible take on the above post. The alternative is you're being disingenuous.

logbiscuitswave 5y ago
Not sure where these accusations are coming coming from but no joke or disingenuousness was intended here. You replied to my comment originally and I answered your question with more details. I’ve said before that Swift is a relatively new language to me. I’m not up to date on its many “evolutions” or particularly familiar with its history and nuances. I am not even sure what Swift version I’m on right now other than “whatever the latest version of Xcode uses”. I’m just trying to learn the Swift/SwiftUI stack by writing some code for MacOS and iOS as part of a hobbyist project that I’m working on during my downtime. When I was trying to do something that’s worked fine in many other languages the Swift compiler literally told me “no” because it had been removed from the language in version X. I mean whatever - I found how to work around this - it was a kind of clunky and overwrought one versus the simplicity of the original code but it met my needs and it was a teachable moment. My overarching point originally wasn’t meant as a hard criticism of Swift. I’m fact I quite like it. It was an observation that Swift is unlike other languages I work with regularly where it’s rare that language features are ever removed (or at worst hidden behind compiler or feature flags). Swift’s designers clearly think it’s ok to remove things they don’t like or they don’t think meets their vision. That’s fine and valid. My point was that as a result of this stance that means tutorials and samples can become stale in a way that I don’t see with the other languages I work with where you’re more likely to be using old methodologies or obsolete APIs - that can/should emit compiler warnings or IDE refactor hints - but otherwise won’t fail to compile because something was removed completely.

Wait, is this some kind of a joke? That's swift evolution number *seven*. They're on hundreds now. That was committed in 2015. This is what, Swift 1.x days? Bef

by zionic 5y ago

logbiscuitswave 5y ago

Not sure where these accusations are coming coming from but no joke or disingenuousness was intended here. You replied to my comment originally and I answered your question with more details. I’ve said before that Swift is a relatively new language to me. I’m not up to date on its many “evolutions” or particularly familiar with its history and nuances. I am not even sure what Swift version I’m on right now other than “whatever the latest version of Xcode uses”. I’m just trying to learn the Swift/SwiftUI stack by writing some code for MacOS and iOS as part of a hobbyist project that I’m working on during my downtime. When I was trying to do something that’s worked fine in many other languages the Swift compiler literally told me “no” because it had been removed from the language in version X. I mean whatever - I found how to work around this - it was a kind of clunky and overwrought one versus the simplicity of the original code but it met my needs and it was a teachable moment. My overarching point originally wasn’t meant as a hard criticism of Swift. I’m fact I quite like it. It was an observation that Swift is unlike other languages I work with regularly where it’s rare that language features are ever removed (or at worst hidden behind compiler or feature flags). Swift’s designers clearly think it’s ok to remove things they don’t like or they don’t think meets their vision. That’s fine and valid. My point was that as a result of this stance that means tutorials and samples can become stale in a way that I don’t see with the other languages I work with where you’re more likely to be using old methodologies or obsolete APIs - that can/should emit compiler warnings or IDE refactor hints - but otherwise won’t fail to compile because something was removed completely.