5 ms·

The language is not "innovative" as they claim, so people are expecting at least some learning from mistakes of prior languages. They could've hired some smart

The language is not "innovative" as they claim, so people are expecting at least some learning from mistakes of prior languages. They could've hired some smart people from more software-oriented companies or something.

acqq 12y ago
Given the constraints, it's certainly very innovative.
- _random_ 12y ago
  Just to be clear: innovative for Apple development community or innovative generally? Please list some/all innovations, I would be happy to reconsider.
  - acqq 12y ago
    Apple GUI development is obviously a major constraint. Another is: no GC in order to avoid the collections happening when they want and thus making the smoothness of the UI impossible. I still claim there isn't at this moment any more innovative language that can provide that what Swift provides, observing any GUI platform you want to observe: meaning that level of support for the platform's native GUI with that performance and elegance.
    - Dewie 12y ago
      > meaning that level of support for the platform's native GUI with that performance and elegance. Seems like that criteria would bias the choice of most innovative language quite heavily towards languages developed for/by Apple, no?
      - acqq 12y ago
        It's the most innovative performant language for any GUI. There are maybe more innovative but less usable languages. If there isn't any better existing for any other platform, it's certainly not Apple's fault.
      - Dewie 12y ago
        Wow, when I went to bed this comment was at 2 karma. Now it is at a negative (-3) and so are all the comments in this chain of replies that was critical of Apple's product, when before they were not greyed out. Fancy that. :)
        acqq 12y ago
        What if it's because the claims in the mentioned comments were actually unsubstantiated? Read the article linked by aidanhs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 From the article: "no, your experience with server-side programming does not adequately prepare you to “think small” and correctly reason about mobile performance."
        Dewie 12y ago
        > What if it's because the claims in the mentioned comments were actually unsubstantiated? Read the article linked by aidanhs: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 Red herring. aidanhs' reply was to someone who genuinely asked why garbage collection is problematic. The comments I'm talking about have not mentioned garbage collection, just questioning what innovative really is. I guess you then tried to infer that they thought that garbage collection vs. reference counting doesn't matter, i.e. isn't innovative? I find that to be an unfair inference. They might as well think that something like that has already been done/is being done, i.e. with Rust and how it relegates any automatic memory management to opt-in libraries. So it seems to be a disagreement about what is really worthy of being called innovative, not any technical merit, as the comments that I'm talking about has not questioned that. > From the article: > "no, your experience with server-side programming does not adequately prepare you to “think small” and correctly reason about mobile performance." Straw man, unless you somehow know that all of these people only have experience with server-side programming.
        vor_ 12y ago
        Suggesting anything "critical of Apple's product" automatically gets voted down just makes me roll my eyes.
    - _random_ 12y ago
      I see the source of your confusion now. To me innovation means something absolutely new, not re-applying/combining prior art. Wikipedia agrees: "Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different rather than doing the same thing better."
      - acqq 12y ago
        Apple is doing something different and new, comparing all available languages capable to produce fast non-stuttering GUI based applications that work smoothly even on the smartphones and demand minimal resources. And it's not a small feat by any comparison. It's like you'd read about the first usable jet-powered car and then claim "but it's not innovative, there were jet powered planes already."
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        DCKing 12y ago
        You're talking incredible nonsense. I can create fast non-stuttering GUI applications on phones with minimal resources (talking <$100 phones here) using F#. F# is far more feature rich than Swift is or ever will be. I have been able to do so ever since Windows Phone first came out. But that's not something F# does, but Windows Phone happens to be very good at non-stuttering GUI based applications that work smoothly even on smartphones with minimal resources. Don't pretend iOS' fluidness is some merit of Objective-C or Swift, because it is a merit of the operating system.
        acqq 12y ago
        Do read the article here linked by aidanhs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 then complain to all the authors that measured all that they measured (a lot of links and diagrams there) instead of complaining to me. It will still be an attempt to confront all the real measurements with your anecdotal evidence of one, your, particular case, unless you manage to disprove all the claims listed there. Especially if you manage to disprove this: http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-14-at-10.15.29-PM.png http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-... You'll be celebrated as the biggest genius of our times.
    - gclaramunt 12y ago
      Filling a niche is not being innovative. Is totally fine, and it might be big deal, but if you take the language by itself it doesn't bring anything new to the table. But I might be wrong, so feel free to point to an innovative language feature.
coldtea 12y ago
>The language is not "innovative" as they claim Not innovative compared to what? Haskell? Unfinished betas like Rust? Some language 100 people use (plus 1-2 banks and a couple of universities)? This is a language that will jump in the top ten of most used languages in a year or so, just because it's used in a hugely popular development platform. And it had to fulfil several things to achieve that. >They could've hired some smart people from more software-oriented companies or something Because Chris Lattner, the guy behind the infrastructure of tens of new languages and one of the most popular C/C++ compilers, is not smart enough right? Or the team that created Swift. And which company would that be? Go, for one, is like a 1980 language compared to Swift. And C# had 14 years to evolve, and didn't have the same functionality constrains Swift has handicapped with at all.
- DCKing 12y ago
  It is somewhat unfair to dismiss Rust as an unfinished beta in comments on an article that demonstrates how the Swift compiler isn't even up to beta standards. Swift is a nice language for sure. It picks up nicest features of many other language and doesn't trade that off with many annoyancies (from what I've seen so far). It also appears like a very accessible language. It breaks with older languages where those older languages are bad (eg "==" vs "===") but mostly sticks to things that work and are familiar. I think these criteria are important for what I think is "good language design". Swift is not in any reasonable sense an innovative language. There is really nothing in there that is new. Now you can get worked up about that, or just accept that innovativity is really something far less important (or perhaps even undesirable) when compared to "good design" for Swift. Especially given its unique position.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >It is somewhat unfair to dismiss Rust as an unfinished beta in comments on an article that demonstrates how the Swift compiler isn't even up to beta standards. I agree, didn't intent to dismiss Rust per se -- I like Rust. Just wanted to give a perspective. Swift is in beta (and buggy), but Rust (if the OP compared it to that), isn't even syntactically stable. Based on what we know, Swift will be in a (pretty much) stable condition come Fall, for the OS X release.

acqq 12y ago

Given the constraints, it's certainly very innovative.

_random_ 12y ago
Just to be clear: innovative for Apple development community or innovative generally? Please list some/all innovations, I would be happy to reconsider.
- acqq 12y ago
  Apple GUI development is obviously a major constraint. Another is: no GC in order to avoid the collections happening when they want and thus making the smoothness of the UI impossible. I still claim there isn't at this moment any more innovative language that can provide that what Swift provides, observing any GUI platform you want to observe: meaning that level of support for the platform's native GUI with that performance and elegance.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    > meaning that level of support for the platform's native GUI with that performance and elegance. Seems like that criteria would bias the choice of most innovative language quite heavily towards languages developed for/by Apple, no?
    - acqq 12y ago
      It's the most innovative performant language for any GUI. There are maybe more innovative but less usable languages. If there isn't any better existing for any other platform, it's certainly not Apple's fault.
    - Dewie 12y ago
      Wow, when I went to bed this comment was at 2 karma. Now it is at a negative (-3) and so are all the comments in this chain of replies that was critical of Apple's product, when before they were not greyed out. Fancy that. :)
      - acqq 12y ago
        What if it's because the claims in the mentioned comments were actually unsubstantiated? Read the article linked by aidanhs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 From the article: "no, your experience with server-side programming does not adequately prepare you to “think small” and correctly reason about mobile performance."
        Dewie 12y ago
        > What if it's because the claims in the mentioned comments were actually unsubstantiated? Read the article linked by aidanhs: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 Red herring. aidanhs' reply was to someone who genuinely asked why garbage collection is problematic. The comments I'm talking about have not mentioned garbage collection, just questioning what innovative really is. I guess you then tried to infer that they thought that garbage collection vs. reference counting doesn't matter, i.e. isn't innovative? I find that to be an unfair inference. They might as well think that something like that has already been done/is being done, i.e. with Rust and how it relegates any automatic memory management to opt-in libraries. So it seems to be a disagreement about what is really worthy of being called innovative, not any technical merit, as the comments that I'm talking about has not questioned that. > From the article: > "no, your experience with server-side programming does not adequately prepare you to “think small” and correctly reason about mobile performance." Straw man, unless you somehow know that all of these people only have experience with server-side programming.
      - vor_ 12y ago
        Suggesting anything "critical of Apple's product" automatically gets voted down just makes me roll my eyes.
  - _random_ 12y ago
    I see the source of your confusion now. To me innovation means something absolutely new, not re-applying/combining prior art. Wikipedia agrees: "Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different rather than doing the same thing better."
    - acqq 12y ago
      Apple is doing something different and new, comparing all available languages capable to produce fast non-stuttering GUI based applications that work smoothly even on the smartphones and demand minimal resources. And it's not a small feat by any comparison. It's like you'd read about the first usable jet-powered car and then claim "but it's not innovative, there were jet powered planes already."
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - DCKing 12y ago
        You're talking incredible nonsense. I can create fast non-stuttering GUI applications on phones with minimal resources (talking <$100 phones here) using F#. F# is far more feature rich than Swift is or ever will be. I have been able to do so ever since Windows Phone first came out. But that's not something F# does, but Windows Phone happens to be very good at non-stuttering GUI based applications that work smoothly even on smartphones with minimal resources. Don't pretend iOS' fluidness is some merit of Objective-C or Swift, because it is a merit of the operating system.
        acqq 12y ago
        Do read the article here linked by aidanhs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7898305 then complain to all the authors that measured all that they measured (a lot of links and diagrams there) instead of complaining to me. It will still be an attempt to confront all the real measurements with your anecdotal evidence of one, your, particular case, unless you manage to disprove all the claims listed there. Especially if you manage to disprove this: http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-14-at-10.15.29-PM.png http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-... You'll be celebrated as the biggest genius of our times.
  - gclaramunt 12y ago
    Filling a niche is not being innovative. Is totally fine, and it might be big deal, but if you take the language by itself it doesn't bring anything new to the table. But I might be wrong, so feel free to point to an innovative language feature.

coldtea 12y ago

>The language is not "innovative" as they claim Not innovative compared to what? Haskell? Unfinished betas like Rust? Some language 100 people use (plus 1-2 banks and a couple of universities)? This is a language that will jump in the top ten of most used languages in a year or so, just because it's used in a hugely popular development platform. And it had to fulfil several things to achieve that. >They could've hired some smart people from more software-oriented companies or something Because Chris Lattner, the guy behind the infrastructure of tens of new languages and one of the most popular C/C++ compilers, is not smart enough right? Or the team that created Swift. And which company would that be? Go, for one, is like a 1980 language compared to Swift. And C# had 14 years to evolve, and didn't have the same functionality constrains Swift has handicapped with at all.

DCKing 12y ago
It is somewhat unfair to dismiss Rust as an unfinished beta in comments on an article that demonstrates how the Swift compiler isn't even up to beta standards. Swift is a nice language for sure. It picks up nicest features of many other language and doesn't trade that off with many annoyancies (from what I've seen so far). It also appears like a very accessible language. It breaks with older languages where those older languages are bad (eg "==" vs "===") but mostly sticks to things that work and are familiar. I think these criteria are important for what I think is "good language design". Swift is not in any reasonable sense an innovative language. There is really nothing in there that is new. Now you can get worked up about that, or just accept that innovativity is really something far less important (or perhaps even undesirable) when compared to "good design" for Swift. Especially given its unique position.
coldtea 12y ago
>It is somewhat unfair to dismiss Rust as an unfinished beta in comments on an article that demonstrates how the Swift compiler isn't even up to beta standards. I agree, didn't intent to dismiss Rust per se -- I like Rust. Just wanted to give a perspective. Swift is in beta (and buggy), but Rust (if the OP compared it to that), isn't even syntactically stable. Based on what we know, Swift will be in a (pretty much) stable condition come Fall, for the OS X release.