5 ms·

Agreed that the lack of using an existing (and open-source!) language is annoying and frustrating to deal with (think of where we'd be if they invested that tim

Agreed that the lack of using an existing (and open-source!) language is annoying and frustrating to deal with (think of where we'd be if they invested that time and effort into improving Ruby/Python/whatever instead!). But because of the desire for compatibility with Objective-C, and Apple's general desire to call all the shots regarding their ecosystem, this move doesn't surprise me in the least.

angersock 12y ago
Apple consistently represents a step backwards for both developers and users, in terms of engineering and freedom, but they've amassed enough capital at this point that the hope of them simply withering on the vine and dying off is probably not going to happen. At least Microsoft and Google show off their new projects and code so everyone can learn from them and read their research.
- ethyreal 12y ago
  any proof to back up those claims?
  - angersock 12y ago
    http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://research.google.com/ http://research.google.com/ http://research.apple.com/ http://research.apple.com/ Hint: one of these things is not like the other...see if you can figure out which using only the power of curl.
emn13 12y ago
The fact that this has static typing is a huge difference to "just improving" ruby/python. That approach couldn't come close to getting the same early-error-catching dev experience, and performance. And amongst static languages, Apple wasn't likely to recommend C++ as simple, were they? And Rust/D are also quite low level, nor do they have the Objective-C legacy to consider. So really, you're probably left with C# (or maybe Java), and those are so old and large (esp. the libraries) by now that they're unlikely to naturally port to Apple's environment. Frankly, a bit of a clean up every decade or two is not exactly often, right?

angersock 12y ago

Apple consistently represents a step backwards for both developers and users, in terms of engineering and freedom, but they've amassed enough capital at this point that the hope of them simply withering on the vine and dying off is probably not going to happen. At least Microsoft and Google show off their new projects and code so everyone can learn from them and read their research.

ethyreal 12y ago
any proof to back up those claims?
- angersock 12y ago
  http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://research.google.com/ http://research.google.com/ http://research.apple.com/ http://research.apple.com/ Hint: one of these things is not like the other...see if you can figure out which using only the power of curl.

emn13 12y ago

The fact that this has static typing is a huge difference to "just improving" ruby/python. That approach couldn't come close to getting the same early-error-catching dev experience, and performance. And amongst static languages, Apple wasn't likely to recommend C++ as simple, were they? And Rust/D are also quite low level, nor do they have the Objective-C legacy to consider. So really, you're probably left with C# (or maybe Java), and those are so old and large (esp. the libraries) by now that they're unlikely to naturally port to Apple's environment. Frankly, a bit of a clean up every decade or two is not exactly often, right?