3 ms·

Yeah, the article's technical analysis is good but I'm not sure what this line was supposed to say: what it actually says is wrong. Swift is definitely intended

Yeah, the article's technical analysis is good but I'm not sure what this line was supposed to say: what it actually says is wrong. Swift is definitely intended to replace Objective-C. Perhaps that line in article meant that it's not binary identical to Objective-C. Swift classes definitely use different method invocation semantics (unless you adorn the class with the @objc attribute).

eswick 12y ago
What I meant by that was, the Objective-C runtime is still needed.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  Sure, because Apple wants a transition path for existing code. The Objective-C runtime takes the role of COM in Mac OS X/iOS. A binary ABI between OO languages.