3 ms·

We know. But I too have a hard time trusting this. First, because I feel that Swift has been a boondoggle that everyone was forced to accept and now it's just

We know. But I too have a hard time trusting this. First, because I feel that Swift has been a boondoggle that everyone was forced to accept and now it's just normal. I'm still not convinced Steve Jobs would have given Swift a go-ahead (release). From the start, Swift felt like, as a language, that it didn't know what it wanted to say, with a big part of that coming from having just taken a kitchen sink approach to syntax and features. Looking at their same code, 4 lines of python becomes like 12+ lines. I'm not sure who this attracts. More importantly, he clashed at Tesla. He left a gaping hole in the Swift Tensorflow stuff at Google. He also left Apple and promised that he would still be involved in Swift, until he got pushed out. It's not that he isn't productive or brilliant, I'm just not sure I trust someone with a track record of being volatile as a great maintainer of a platform. Overall, this appears to have the same markings of the Cappuccino web framework project.

pjmlp 3y ago
Steve was still around when Swift started as a toy project, and most likely gave it a go. Objective-C 2.0 was released in 2006, and Steve Jobs died in 2011. As per Chris Lattner interviews, Objective-C 2.0 and latter improvements were the ground work to have a good interoperability story between Objective-C and the new language prototype that would be eventually be known as Swift in 2014. Note that Apple already toyed with Java as possible Objective-C replacement, when they weren't sure if Apple folks educated in Object Pascal and C++ would be keen in adopting Objective-C, latter tried with Ruby (MacRuby) which didn't went anywhere, and the develoeprs left Apple founding RubyMotion still going on.
- webworker 3y ago
  > Steve was still around when Swift started as a toy project, and most likely gave it a go. You can't say for a fact if he "gave it a go", and neither can I. > As per Chris Lattner interviews, Objective-C 2.0 and latter improvements were the ground work to have a good interoperability story between Objective-C and the new language prototype that would be eventually be known as Swift in 2014. Even if Lattner says this, it still seems as bogus to me as saying it's "objective c without the c." They're two completely different things. Swift is a language. Objective-C is a runtime on top of a language disguised to look like a language. They only say this stuff because people probably would have had a meltdown if they were blunt about what swift actually meant - foundational incompatibility. I'm sure their PR was informed by what happened with the massive amount of software that got lost during the Classic MacOS-Max OS X needs-to-be-rewritten transition. To the point, I'm not sure what the syntax sugar they added to the 2.0 release had to do with the fact that swift still relies on message passing to access Foundation et al. MacRuby and PyObC used those same mechanisms to access the same stuff. > Note that Apple already toyed with Java as possible Objective-C replacement, when they weren't sure if Apple folks educated in Object Pascal and C++ would be keen in adopting Objective-C We know. Java was also just buzzyworthy to include in your OS back then.

pjmlp 3y ago

Steve was still around when Swift started as a toy project, and most likely gave it a go. Objective-C 2.0 was released in 2006, and Steve Jobs died in 2011. As per Chris Lattner interviews, Objective-C 2.0 and latter improvements were the ground work to have a good interoperability story between Objective-C and the new language prototype that would be eventually be known as Swift in 2014. Note that Apple already toyed with Java as possible Objective-C replacement, when they weren't sure if Apple folks educated in Object Pascal and C++ would be keen in adopting Objective-C, latter tried with Ruby (MacRuby) which didn't went anywhere, and the develoeprs left Apple founding RubyMotion still going on.

webworker 3y ago
> Steve was still around when Swift started as a toy project, and most likely gave it a go. You can't say for a fact if he "gave it a go", and neither can I. > As per Chris Lattner interviews, Objective-C 2.0 and latter improvements were the ground work to have a good interoperability story between Objective-C and the new language prototype that would be eventually be known as Swift in 2014. Even if Lattner says this, it still seems as bogus to me as saying it's "objective c without the c." They're two completely different things. Swift is a language. Objective-C is a runtime on top of a language disguised to look like a language. They only say this stuff because people probably would have had a meltdown if they were blunt about what swift actually meant - foundational incompatibility. I'm sure their PR was informed by what happened with the massive amount of software that got lost during the Classic MacOS-Max OS X needs-to-be-rewritten transition. To the point, I'm not sure what the syntax sugar they added to the 2.0 release had to do with the fact that swift still relies on message passing to access Foundation et al. MacRuby and PyObC used those same mechanisms to access the same stuff. > Note that Apple already toyed with Java as possible Objective-C replacement, when they weren't sure if Apple folks educated in Object Pascal and C++ would be keen in adopting Objective-C We know. Java was also just buzzyworthy to include in your OS back then.