4 ms·

This is false. > "You can imagine that many of us want [Swift] to be open source and part of llvm, but the discussion hasn't happened yet, and won't for some t

by 3JPLW 12y ago

This is false. > "You can imagine that many of us want [Swift] to be open source and part of llvm, but the discussion hasn't happened yet, and won't for some time." - Chris Lattner, LLVMDev mailing list. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-June/073698.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-June/073698....

chc 12y ago
This is strange. You just quoted Chris Lattner saying Apple has no intention of making it open-source, but said it makes me wrong. Indeed, he confirmed that it hadn't even been considered at that time.
- austinz 12y ago
  The sentence preceding that one reads: > We literally have not even discussed this [open-sourcing] yet, because we have a ton of work to do to respond to the huge volume of feedback we're getting, and have to get a huge number of things (e.g. access control!) done before the 1.0 release this fall. If you take Chris Lattner at face value, he is saying the reason the discussion hasn't happened is because they have too much other stuff to do (as opposed to Apple being indifferent or opposed to said discussion taking place).
  - chc 12y ago
    So, again we have Lattner saying that Apple hasn't even considered releasing it as open-source. Still not seeing the part where Apple is going to open-source it. Also, he said they have stuff to do before the release this fall. That happened, and still not a word about it. I don't see how you can possibly take this "We haven't even talked about it and I can't say when we will" as a declaration that Swift will be open-sourced. It is the opposite. It isn't a firm denial that it will ever be opened up, but it is definitely a denial of any plans to do so.
- mcphage 12y ago
  Your statement: > Nobody at Apple has expressed any intention to make Swift free. Zero. Zip. Chris Lattner: > "You can imagine that many of us want [Swift] to be open source and part of llvm" So Chris Lattner (who works for Apple) has stated that he, and many others at Apple, want to make it open source. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.
  - chc 12y ago
    I want a Tesla. Based on me saying this, do you think that I'm definitely going to buy a Tesla? Well, I am not, because I haven't got the money. A statement of personal desire on the part of one individual is different from a statement of intention or interest on the part of Apple. Lattner specifically says alongside his personal desire that they haven't even considered open-sourcing Swift. So what am I looking for? A statement to the effect that Apple will open-source Swift.
    - mcphage 12y ago
      > A statement of personal desire on the part of one individual is different from a statement of intention or interest on the part of Apple. I agree, but you asked for the former.
- austinz 12y ago
  > I don't see how you can possibly take this "We haven't even talked about it and I can't say when we will" as a declaration that Swift will be open-sourced. I never, ever said Swift was going to be open-sourced. My only point is that, despite whatever circumstantial evidence you've cited, Apple has not decided that they don't want Swift to be open sourced. > Also, he said they have stuff to do before the release this fall. That happened, and still not a word about it. The fall "release" was incomplete - it didn't ship with Swift support for OS X. Presumably they've been spending the time between the fall release of Xcode 6.0 and 6.1 (which came out yesterday) working on finishing the language. Even before 6.0 was officially released they were already releasing developer previews of 6.1.
  - chc 12y ago
    Like so many people in this thread, you have taken what I said, which is quite simple, and twisted it into something bizarre. I'm simply saying that Apple has not expressed any intention to open-source Swift. Because of this, I think taking it for granted is overly optimistic.
    - austinz 12y ago
      I think we might be in violent agreement, and if I misread your intent I apologize. Nevertheless, whatever Apple's current stance on the matter is, I think we can both agree that they really, really should open-source Swift.
- LesZedCB 12y ago
  The reason you are getting downvoted (I believe) is that you are posing a false dilemma.[1] It is not the case that Apple is most likely going to leave Swift closed source based on the evidence that we've seen. ALL the evidence we have, as far as swift goes, is that they haven't decided yet, according to Chris' email quote. As others have said, most of Apple's other programming language work has become open source, and I would say that evidence is much stronger than the "evidence" (really lack of evidence one way or the other) that they are going to leave it closed source. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
  - chc 12y ago
    > ALL the evidence we have, as far as swift goes, is that they haven't decided yet, according to Chris' email quote. Yes, precisely. Apple currently has no intention of open-sourcing Swift. All of the evidence supports precisely what I've been saying. This is why I think it is good to remind them that we want them to decide in the affirmative.
    - 3JPLW 12y ago
      You're picking a pretty fine nit on the meaning of the word 'intention.' I see your point, with the exception that you don't know what Apple's intentions are. We have a few pointers, though. The fact that Chris Lattner and some on his team are interested in open-sourcing it is a good sign. Given his wording, I would even say that he intends to have a discussion about open sourcing it. We have even less evidence that Apple intends to leave Swift forever closed source — it's simply the status quo. Apple, as a corporate entity, likely has no intention either way right now. Even if it did, Apple rarely broadcasts its intentions. Swift will likely be closed source until suddenly it's not.
      - chc 12y ago
        They don't need to intend to keep Swift closed forever in order for it to be kept closed forever. It takes an active intention for them to open it up, but not to keep it closed. If they put off making a final decision until the heat death of the universe, it will still never be open-sourced without them ever specifically intending not to.

by 3JPLW 12y ago

chc 12y ago

This is strange. You just quoted Chris Lattner saying Apple has no intention of making it open-source, but said it makes me wrong. Indeed, he confirmed that it hadn't even been considered at that time.

austinz 12y ago
The sentence preceding that one reads: > We literally have not even discussed this [open-sourcing] yet, because we have a ton of work to do to respond to the huge volume of feedback we're getting, and have to get a huge number of things (e.g. access control!) done before the 1.0 release this fall. If you take Chris Lattner at face value, he is saying the reason the discussion hasn't happened is because they have too much other stuff to do (as opposed to Apple being indifferent or opposed to said discussion taking place).
- chc 12y ago
  So, again we have Lattner saying that Apple hasn't even considered releasing it as open-source. Still not seeing the part where Apple is going to open-source it. Also, he said they have stuff to do before the release this fall. That happened, and still not a word about it. I don't see how you can possibly take this "We haven't even talked about it and I can't say when we will" as a declaration that Swift will be open-sourced. It is the opposite. It isn't a firm denial that it will ever be opened up, but it is definitely a denial of any plans to do so.
mcphage 12y ago
Your statement: > Nobody at Apple has expressed any intention to make Swift free. Zero. Zip. Chris Lattner: > "You can imagine that many of us want [Swift] to be open source and part of llvm" So Chris Lattner (who works for Apple) has stated that he, and many others at Apple, want to make it open source. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.
- chc 12y ago
  I want a Tesla. Based on me saying this, do you think that I'm definitely going to buy a Tesla? Well, I am not, because I haven't got the money. A statement of personal desire on the part of one individual is different from a statement of intention or interest on the part of Apple. Lattner specifically says alongside his personal desire that they haven't even considered open-sourcing Swift. So what am I looking for? A statement to the effect that Apple will open-source Swift.
  - mcphage 12y ago
    > A statement of personal desire on the part of one individual is different from a statement of intention or interest on the part of Apple. I agree, but you asked for the former.
austinz 12y ago
> I don't see how you can possibly take this "We haven't even talked about it and I can't say when we will" as a declaration that Swift will be open-sourced. I never, ever said Swift was going to be open-sourced. My only point is that, despite whatever circumstantial evidence you've cited, Apple has not decided that they don't want Swift to be open sourced. > Also, he said they have stuff to do before the release this fall. That happened, and still not a word about it. The fall "release" was incomplete - it didn't ship with Swift support for OS X. Presumably they've been spending the time between the fall release of Xcode 6.0 and 6.1 (which came out yesterday) working on finishing the language. Even before 6.0 was officially released they were already releasing developer previews of 6.1.
- chc 12y ago
  Like so many people in this thread, you have taken what I said, which is quite simple, and twisted it into something bizarre. I'm simply saying that Apple has not expressed any intention to open-source Swift. Because of this, I think taking it for granted is overly optimistic.
  - austinz 12y ago
    I think we might be in violent agreement, and if I misread your intent I apologize. Nevertheless, whatever Apple's current stance on the matter is, I think we can both agree that they really, really should open-source Swift.
LesZedCB 12y ago
The reason you are getting downvoted (I believe) is that you are posing a false dilemma.[1] It is not the case that Apple is most likely going to leave Swift closed source based on the evidence that we've seen. ALL the evidence we have, as far as swift goes, is that they haven't decided yet, according to Chris' email quote. As others have said, most of Apple's other programming language work has become open source, and I would say that evidence is much stronger than the "evidence" (really lack of evidence one way or the other) that they are going to leave it closed source. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
- chc 12y ago
  > ALL the evidence we have, as far as swift goes, is that they haven't decided yet, according to Chris' email quote. Yes, precisely. Apple currently has no intention of open-sourcing Swift. All of the evidence supports precisely what I've been saying. This is why I think it is good to remind them that we want them to decide in the affirmative.
  - 3JPLW 12y ago
    You're picking a pretty fine nit on the meaning of the word 'intention.' I see your point, with the exception that you don't know what Apple's intentions are. We have a few pointers, though. The fact that Chris Lattner and some on his team are interested in open-sourcing it is a good sign. Given his wording, I would even say that he intends to have a discussion about open sourcing it. We have even less evidence that Apple intends to leave Swift forever closed source — it's simply the status quo. Apple, as a corporate entity, likely has no intention either way right now. Even if it did, Apple rarely broadcasts its intentions. Swift will likely be closed source until suddenly it's not.
    - chc 12y ago
      They don't need to intend to keep Swift closed forever in order for it to be kept closed forever. It takes an active intention for them to open it up, but not to keep it closed. If they put off making a final decision until the heat death of the universe, it will still never be open-sourced without them ever specifically intending not to.