3 ms·

And yes, you're absolutely right. Apple is making a choice here, and they absolutely have impact on what the developers "get to use" - much as .Net succeeds lar

And yes, you're absolutely right. Apple is making a choice here, and they absolutely have impact on what the developers "get to use" - much as .Net succeeds largely to vendor choices on Windows, too. And developers get to suck it up! That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department. That's how it goes.

lapcat 2mo ago
> That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department. Granted, Swift got a huge kick from the job department, but what you wrote said a lot more than that: > A language that makes life hard will not survive past the moment it can be replaced. > Objective-C was awkward as both art and job, and it thrived for fifteen years because it was the only door into the most lucrative developer ecosystem ever built; the moment Swift existed, it evaporated and now survives as a shadow, preserved in its descendant. Apparently you're admitting now that "the moment" is a gross exaggeration. You're also admitting that the "art" aspect is controversial, a matter of personal opinions that vary. I'm not sure why you claimed that Objective-C was "awkward as... job" even before Swift existed?
- jottinger 2mo ago
  I wrote that it was awkward because IMO it was. That is indeed "my opinion" - I found the language it used to express concepts far more useful than the language itself, and found myself writing C++ far more often than ever wanting to write ObjC.
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    It's unclear whether your last comment is talking about the art or the job axis, the latter of which I just asked about. I certainly don't see how using C++ would be less awkward on the job for developers than ObjC when the job was primarily calling ObjC system API.
    - jottinger 2mo ago
      [dead]

3 ms·

And yes, you're absolutely right. Apple is making a choice here, and they absolutely have impact on what the developers "get to use" - much as .Net succeeds lar

by jottinger 2mo ago

lapcat 2mo ago
> That's the three axis thing again: vocation, art, job. Swift and .Net both got a huge kick from the "job" department. Granted, Swift got a huge kick from the job department, but what you wrote said a lot more than that: > A language that makes life hard will not survive past the moment it can be replaced. > Objective-C was awkward as both art and job, and it thrived for fifteen years because it was the only door into the most lucrative developer ecosystem ever built; the moment Swift existed, it evaporated and now survives as a shadow, preserved in its descendant. Apparently you're admitting now that "the moment" is a gross exaggeration. You're also admitting that the "art" aspect is controversial, a matter of personal opinions that vary. I'm not sure why you claimed that Objective-C was "awkward as... job" even before Swift existed?
- jottinger 2mo ago
  I wrote that it was awkward because IMO it was. That is indeed "my opinion" - I found the language it used to express concepts far more useful than the language itself, and found myself writing C++ far more often than ever wanting to write ObjC.
  - lapcat 2mo ago
    It's unclear whether your last comment is talking about the art or the job axis, the latter of which I just asked about. I certainly don't see how using C++ would be less awkward on the job for developers than ObjC when the job was primarily calling ObjC system API.
    - jottinger 2mo ago
      [dead]