4 ms·
The biggest difference being that both Python and Ruby were module cultures, so saying that a gem existed actually means something. On the other hand, Mac dev d
by tolmasky 12y ago
The biggest difference being that both Python and Ruby were module cultures, so saying that a gem existed actually means something. On the other hand, Mac dev didn't have Cocoapods until 2011. Apple dev at the time (and I'd argue in large part still today), was mainly using Apple's monolithic frameworks (and downloading AFNetworking source code to include in your project), so it was much more important for it to be included in the standard library. However, the point still stands that we now have a new language that still does not have this basic support.
- quesera 12y agoTrue, the ObjC culture was undeniably different than the CPAN-inspired code sharing cultures of Ruby and Python. So there were fewer quality libraries. But the libraries did exist, and Apple devs in general came from a background of C and UNIX programming, where static libs weren't an oddity. This is all different now, due to the huge influx of ObjC devs from the web world. Expectations have changed, CocoaPods emerged in response, etc. But I have no explanation for the Swift situation, except that it looks and feels like ObjC and Cocoa. I think Mattt's point is that it needn't. This might be a bit of C culture still showing through...any other conversion process would be, ultimately, magic. ObjC has never been about brevity or implicitness.