4 ms·

Here's what Wikipedia says about the creator of the language. > Christopher Arthur Lattner (born 1978) is an American computer scientist, former Google and Tes

Here's what Wikipedia says about the creator of the language. > Christopher Arthur Lattner (born 1978) is an American computer scientist, former Google and Tesla employee and co-founder of LLVM, Clang compiler, MLIR compiler infrastructure and the Swift programming language. I have the sense that he and Apple knew exactly what they were doing. Using something established comes with it's own baggage and risks. It's times like this I wish HN had 'fact-check' flagging for posts.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Did I miss something? Is swift being moved away from by Apple?
- CharlesW 3y ago
  You didn’t miss anything, and Apple continues to be committed to Swift for development on Apple platforms for the foreseeable future
troupo 3y ago
Just the fact that Lattner to create the language doesn't mean that the language had the chance to prove its worth. It was mandated from above. > It's times like this I wish HN had 'fact-check' flagging for posts. What exactly is not factual about the post?
- randomdata 3y ago
  The idea that he follows the litmus test is of questionable factuality given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. However, the Swift project began in the same timeframe, so even if we understand these things now, Objective-J shows that we didn’t back then.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. Did the author mention Objective-J? > It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. So, your "fact check" is "it is likely"?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      The author doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I have no idea what the second statement is trying to say.
      - troupo 3y ago
        The author's point maybe valid regardless of his work. The second statement is not n the context of this thread, I didn't look at the username and thought you were the original commenter I answered to :)
        randomdata 3y ago
        The author's assertion is that he uses the described qualities as a litmus test when deciding if a new language is justified. But him creating Objective-J calls him using that litmus test as described into question. Again, it seems likely that his experience with Objective-J and it failing on those fronts is why he has come to think that way. If that is the case, then why would Apple magically have had the foresight he and his team lacked?
        troupo 3y ago
        You have a weird obsession with Objective J that was never mentioned or alluded to in the linked thread.
        randomdata 3y ago
        He talks specifically about when he chooses to create a new language. "I generally view that initial list (with some other items) as a kind of litmus test of whether it makes sense to write a new language:" Therefore, Objective-J is the language that passed the test for him. But what did it actually bring to the table other than some interoperability with existing Apple APIs, which allowed direct use of Interface Builder? Which, as it happens, is also the same primary design goal Swift had. The answer is: Nothing. Other projects at the time showed you could achieve 90% of same using plain old Javascript, despite Objective-J being clearly the better language, with already had a strong and mature ecosystem that was good enough. And therefore Objective-J should have never passed his litmus test. Thus, his claims that he follows the litmus test is false. Or, more likely, has only become true in recent times due to his experience with Objective-J and how it failed on those fronts. But if that's the case then it is not clear how it applies to Apple as there was no reason for Apple to know any better back then either. > You have a weird obsession Where do you find relevance in this logical error?

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

Did I miss something? Is swift being moved away from by Apple?

CharlesW 3y ago
You didn’t miss anything, and Apple continues to be committed to Swift for development on Apple platforms for the foreseeable future

troupo 3y ago

Just the fact that Lattner to create the language doesn't mean that the language had the chance to prove its worth. It was mandated from above. > It's times like this I wish HN had 'fact-check' flagging for posts. What exactly is not factual about the post?

randomdata 3y ago
The idea that he follows the litmus test is of questionable factuality given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. However, the Swift project began in the same timeframe, so even if we understand these things now, Objective-J shows that we didn’t back then.
- troupo 3y ago
  > given that the author’s own Objective-J language would have failed it. Did the author mention Objective-J? > It is likely that the litmus test came from his experience creating Objective-J. So, your "fact check" is "it is likely"?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    The author doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I have no idea what the second statement is trying to say.
    - troupo 3y ago
      The author's point maybe valid regardless of his work. The second statement is not n the context of this thread, I didn't look at the username and thought you were the original commenter I answered to :)
      - randomdata 3y ago
        The author's assertion is that he uses the described qualities as a litmus test when deciding if a new language is justified. But him creating Objective-J calls him using that litmus test as described into question. Again, it seems likely that his experience with Objective-J and it failing on those fronts is why he has come to think that way. If that is the case, then why would Apple magically have had the foresight he and his team lacked?
        troupo 3y ago
        You have a weird obsession with Objective J that was never mentioned or alluded to in the linked thread.
        randomdata 3y ago
        He talks specifically about when he chooses to create a new language. "I generally view that initial list (with some other items) as a kind of litmus test of whether it makes sense to write a new language:" Therefore, Objective-J is the language that passed the test for him. But what did it actually bring to the table other than some interoperability with existing Apple APIs, which allowed direct use of Interface Builder? Which, as it happens, is also the same primary design goal Swift had. The answer is: Nothing. Other projects at the time showed you could achieve 90% of same using plain old Javascript, despite Objective-J being clearly the better language, with already had a strong and mature ecosystem that was good enough. And therefore Objective-J should have never passed his litmus test. Thus, his claims that he follows the litmus test is false. Or, more likely, has only become true in recent times due to his experience with Objective-J and how it failed on those fronts. But if that's the case then it is not clear how it applies to Apple as there was no reason for Apple to know any better back then either. > You have a weird obsession Where do you find relevance in this logical error?