6 ms·

> As of Swift 5 there is zero data race protection and the process model (DispatchQueues if memory serves) is woefully. No advantage over fork and much more con

> As of Swift 5 there is zero data race protection and the process model (DispatchQueues if memory serves) is woefully. No advantage over fork and much more convoluted Swift Concurrency is the replacement for Dispatch and has been around since Swift 5.5 in (IIRC) 2021. It’s a completely different system, uses lightweight tasks (a la tokio in rust, or goroutines in go, etc), has a concept of “Sendable” for thread-safety a la rust’s Send, async/await, and a native `actor` type, among other things. Swift 5.5 didn’t get all the way towards rust-style data race safety due to a few things they had to make warnings instead of errors (to avoid breaking existing code), and introducing keywords like `@preconcurrency` when importing frameworks that predate Swift Concurrency, to facilitate incremental adoption. They’ve also been adding more checks in each minor release to tighten things up. IIUC Swift 6 is mainly going to turn all the warnings into proper errors and tweak some defaults so that you get proper data race protection on a default compile. Point is, it’s totally inaccurate to say that Dispatch Queues is all that exists in Swift 5. You’ve had much better stuff for a while now (although SC still has a ton of issues worth discussing.)

worik 2y ago
> Swift 5.5 didn’t get all the way towards rust-style data race When I experimented with it it was trivial for one thread to interfere with another. So Swift got nowhere towards data race safety. Still stuck in the 1990s I know not what you mean "Swift Concurrency". When I was doing it all we had was DispatchQueue which was an obfuscation of `fork`. Quite shameful really. I think the main point is that Swift is a failure. "although SC still has a ton of issues worth discussing" once I would have cared, but this year (decade, century) I am just very glad putting meat in my fridge no longer depends on those rouges from Apple who treated me so badly when I was sweating so hard making software for their platforms (not to mention paying them so much money). In 2024, for a company like Apple, for their flagship developer offering, why would anyone still have "a ton of issues" with it? Apple is now an example of why popularity is a terrible metric to estimate quality of technical offerings. What a shame. How far the mighty have fallen
- ezfe 2y ago
  Okay, so you're saying you don't know what Swift Concurrency is and they say Swift is a failure. Swift has async/await built into the language with many compile time guarantees of thread safety.
  - worik 2y ago
    > Okay, so you're saying you don't know what Swift Concurrency I just looked it up. It is Swift's version of async/await. That is a different thing from threads. I know what that is, used it a lot, because using threads was such a nightmare in Swift. > language with many compile time guarantees of thread safety From two separate threads you can access the same memory. No trouble (apart from crashes memory corruption....) at all. Async/await is always a bad idea, and without a garbage collector it is a nightmare (look at the mess Rust has gotten into). Whatever, async/await is no replacement for parallel programming with threads. It is a different beast.
    - cube2222 2y ago
      > Whatever, async/await is no replacement for parallel programming with threads. Is it not for the vast majority of use-cases? Sure, you can use async/await without parallelism, via a single-threaded runtime to just get single-threaded concurrency, but with a multi-threaded worker-pool async/await-like tasks or fibers I think mostly cover the use-cases you'd have for parallelism? You have to make sure that you e.g. don't starve other tasks via having no yield points in a task that does a lot of computation (if you're doing cooperative tasks which Swift is doing iirc), but that's not a big one, and can mostly be solved by the runtime too (e.g. Go had cooperative fibers for a long time, until they chose to introduce preemption).
    - ninkendo 2y ago
      > I just looked it up. It is Swift's version of async/await. Since you “just looked it up”, maybe don’t make blind assertions about something you clearly don’t know very much about? It’s a lot more than async/await. It is a way to offer compile time guarantees about thread safety (through Sendable, which is part of SC), it’s an actor model (allowing shared mutable state to be isolated, leveraging async/await for coordination so that callers can pause if the actor is currently servicing another message) and a bunch more stuff. I explained all this in my post you replied to, maybe read the whole thing before making wrong claims about stuff you spent 1 minute looking up?

worik 2y ago

> Swift 5.5 didn’t get all the way towards rust-style data race When I experimented with it it was trivial for one thread to interfere with another. So Swift got nowhere towards data race safety. Still stuck in the 1990s I know not what you mean "Swift Concurrency". When I was doing it all we had was DispatchQueue which was an obfuscation of `fork`. Quite shameful really. I think the main point is that Swift is a failure. "although SC still has a ton of issues worth discussing" once I would have cared, but this year (decade, century) I am just very glad putting meat in my fridge no longer depends on those rouges from Apple who treated me so badly when I was sweating so hard making software for their platforms (not to mention paying them so much money). In 2024, for a company like Apple, for their flagship developer offering, why would anyone still have "a ton of issues" with it? Apple is now an example of why popularity is a terrible metric to estimate quality of technical offerings. What a shame. How far the mighty have fallen

ezfe 2y ago
Okay, so you're saying you don't know what Swift Concurrency is and they say Swift is a failure. Swift has async/await built into the language with many compile time guarantees of thread safety.
- worik 2y ago
  > Okay, so you're saying you don't know what Swift Concurrency I just looked it up. It is Swift's version of async/await. That is a different thing from threads. I know what that is, used it a lot, because using threads was such a nightmare in Swift. > language with many compile time guarantees of thread safety From two separate threads you can access the same memory. No trouble (apart from crashes memory corruption....) at all. Async/await is always a bad idea, and without a garbage collector it is a nightmare (look at the mess Rust has gotten into). Whatever, async/await is no replacement for parallel programming with threads. It is a different beast.
  - cube2222 2y ago
    > Whatever, async/await is no replacement for parallel programming with threads. Is it not for the vast majority of use-cases? Sure, you can use async/await without parallelism, via a single-threaded runtime to just get single-threaded concurrency, but with a multi-threaded worker-pool async/await-like tasks or fibers I think mostly cover the use-cases you'd have for parallelism? You have to make sure that you e.g. don't starve other tasks via having no yield points in a task that does a lot of computation (if you're doing cooperative tasks which Swift is doing iirc), but that's not a big one, and can mostly be solved by the runtime too (e.g. Go had cooperative fibers for a long time, until they chose to introduce preemption).
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    > I just looked it up. It is Swift's version of async/await. Since you “just looked it up”, maybe don’t make blind assertions about something you clearly don’t know very much about? It’s a lot more than async/await. It is a way to offer compile time guarantees about thread safety (through Sendable, which is part of SC), it’s an actor model (allowing shared mutable state to be isolated, leveraging async/await for coordination so that callers can pause if the actor is currently servicing another message) and a bunch more stuff. I explained all this in my post you replied to, maybe read the whole thing before making wrong claims about stuff you spent 1 minute looking up?