> 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.

> 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.