4 ms·
Yeah, I don’t really know what the author expected Apple to do with the options they had. They couldn’t have used an existing language without some serious com
by dangus 3y ago
Yeah, I don’t really know what the author expected Apple to do with the options they had.
They couldn’t have used an existing language without some serious compromises. The solution didn’t exist. The only choice was to go into uncharted territory.
> Swift didn't have to "earn" its place, prove that its benefits outweighed its downsides. The writing was on the wall, Apple was saying this is the future, which threw the entire community in to chaos
Italicized emphasis mine…I think that saying that the community was thrown into chaos is a bit of a stretch and a dramatization. There was no rug pull, you can still make Objective-C apps if you want to.
- paulddraper 3y agoWhat would be the serious compromise with using Go?
- randomdata 3y agoThe serious compromise every other language had is no great way to send Objective-C messages. You can monkey around with objc_msgSend in pretty much any language, but that’s not exactly ergonomic for developers. You would struggle to convince developers that is an improvement over simply using Objective-C. Is there something about Go that improves on that problem?
- randomdata 3y agoThe author was involved in the creation of Objective-J. It would be interesting to hear about how he saw it meeting his criteria.
- troupo 3y ago> There was no rug pull, you can still make Objective-C apps if you want to. This was an exaggeration, for sure, but there was uncertainty: it wasn't a given that Apple would keep spending time on Objective-C and related libraries. Apple is well known for killing things, even long-established ones.