4 ms·

I don't have a problem with it being Apple controlled. I have a problem with it being presented as an open project while simultaneously Apple completely control

I don't have a problem with it being Apple controlled. I have a problem with it being presented as an open project while simultaneously Apple completely controls its trajectory and maintains private forks of everything, which are where the developer tools are actually built from. If it was a closed process where neat stuff just dropped out of the sky each year, that would be fine. When features drop out of nowhere each year and then get laundered through ex post facto public "review", then I take issue. If it was a closed process then we would expect that only features coming from Apple would exist. In a truly open process there would be facilitation for contributions from people outside the organization. In the Swift project as it is currently run, those contributions have withered on the vine; the core team doesn't particularly welcome or support anything that didn't originate internally.

Grustaf 5y ago
This is a textbook example of what I meant by philosophers obsessed with purity. And it doesn't sound like you're actually following Swift Evolution. A) Most of what happens is done in public, only rarely do they hide stuff until the last minute, like result builders for SwiftUI. B) As far as I know, they have never claimed that it's going to be completely open and 100% community controlled. The core team is mostly Apple employees, that is not a secret.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- b3morales 5y ago
  > it doesn't sound like you're actually following Swift Evolution Nope, you're completely wrong about that.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Then why would you say something like this? It obviously isn't true. > In the Swift project as it is currently run, those contributions have withered on the vine; the core team doesn't particularly welcome or support anything that didn't originate internally. It's also a very niche objection to complain that it's neither fully open nor completely closed. Most people are totally fine that the development is mostly open, with some new features kept hidden for business purposes. The vast majority of Swift users see it as a tool, a tool mostly to write Apple software, and they are more or less pragmatic. Almost all additions to Swift have been very positive for people that use it in their day job.

Grustaf 5y ago

This is a textbook example of what I meant by philosophers obsessed with purity. And it doesn't sound like you're actually following Swift Evolution. A) Most of what happens is done in public, only rarely do they hide stuff until the last minute, like result builders for SwiftUI. B) As far as I know, they have never claimed that it's going to be completely open and 100% community controlled. The core team is mostly Apple employees, that is not a secret.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
b3morales 5y ago
> it doesn't sound like you're actually following Swift Evolution Nope, you're completely wrong about that.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Then why would you say something like this? It obviously isn't true. > In the Swift project as it is currently run, those contributions have withered on the vine; the core team doesn't particularly welcome or support anything that didn't originate internally. It's also a very niche objection to complain that it's neither fully open nor completely closed. Most people are totally fine that the development is mostly open, with some new features kept hidden for business purposes. The vast majority of Swift users see it as a tool, a tool mostly to write Apple software, and they are more or less pragmatic. Almost all additions to Swift have been very positive for people that use it in their day job.