5 ms·

> …out of fear of a closed-source boogyman which doesn't exist any more… (if it ever did). It most certainly did. Read here[1] about the history of Objective-C

> …out of fear of a closed-source boogyman which doesn't exist any more… (if it ever did). It most certainly did. Read here[1] about the history of Objective-C. NeXT tried to keep as much of it as possible proprietary. Sadly, because LLVM is so good but doesn't have copyleft protection, we live in a world where something new and interesting like Swift may never be non-proprietary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Popularization_through_NeXT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Popularization_thr...

MBCook 12y ago
> we live in a world where something new and interesting like Swift may never be non-proprietary. Should Apple not have a right to make their own proprietary language? Let's not forget that Apple is a big part of why LLVM is as well known as it is.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Proprietary language? You mean like a single platform language? What a complete waste that would be. Languages can't be proprietary, anybody can re-implement some language if there is a spec. Whether you can name it the same or not is another issue but non-proprietary languages usually don't survive for very long so it would be in Apples own interest that swift ends up in as many hands as possible. Oracle still doesn't understand this completely about Java, maybe Apple will never understand it about Swift, meanwhile all those non-proprietary languages will flourish.
  - meepmorp 12y ago
    > ... proprietary languages usually don't survive for very long so it would be in Apples own interest that swift ends up in as many hands as possible. This is wrong thinking and it misunderstands Apple's goals and motives for Swift. First and foremost, it's a replacement for Objective-C, which is itself effectively proprietary - there are open source compilers and some legacy openstep implementations, but the driving force behind the language has been exclusively Apple for at least a decade now. In that context, Swift has the same expected level of success as Objective-C, owing to the community that exists around its predecessor. And, for Apple, the important metrics for success with Swift are entirely focused around the effectiveness of the language in support their platform. Given the relative popularity of the platform, they can reasonably expect that people will use the language to gain access to Apple's userbase, because it's a valuable commodity. Second, Apple doesn't care if Swift has a long life, at least, not per se. They want it to be used and to be successful because it's where they're probably moving their platform in the medium to long term. But they're not invested in the longevity of the language so much as they're invested in their platform. If, in another decade, they decide that Swift has outlived its usefulness, they'll replace it and let it die. Any other scenario for the language failing entails Apple faltering as a company, in which case, they don't really care about the Swift's success. (I snipped a "non-" off proprietary, because it didn't seem like what you were arguing from the rest of the post.)
- __david__ 12y ago
  Apple of course has the right to do whatever they please, but the world would be better if their neat new language was available in other contexts than just their system. It pretty much guarantees that the only people who will use it will be a certain class of iOS developer. I will probably never use it unless I am forced to for a job or something. Swift is currently in the same position that C# was in before Mono. It will probably be popular in certain circles, but it's not going to ever dominate the language field like Java, Javascript, and C do. Microsoft's recent freeing of the .NET infrastructure makes it a real, bona fied choice now. Apple should follow suit early, for the good of the language.
  - azinman2 12y ago
    Objective-c, despite having compilers on other platforms, 99% of the time is used for programs running on an apple platform. It just hasn't made it into other universes, despite itself having many nice qualities (especially over c++ imho). Swift is Apple upgrading their own environment, which as an iOS dev is welcome. I'm not sure the cross-platform framework problem is one that helps them or makes much money compared to what is status quo. But at least their proprietary world got better for those of us who write for it.
  - dgreensp 12y ago
    In the world RMS wants, Apple would not have the right to develop Swift and make it proprietary. That's pretty incredible to me, and far more relevant than discussing Swift's barriers to adoption. In RMS's world, hackers close ranks to make sure the power stays in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Sure, corporations might develop a bit of proprietary code now and then, but they are outpaced by armies of hackers writing GPLed code and replicating any innovations they develop. All the best compiler toolchains are GPLed in this world, and corporations are basically forced to participate in the Free Software movement, or suckle at its teat. It would not be possible in practice to sell software, because any software your computer could run would have to be GPLed! A lot of other stuff happened instead. Now we have hackers working at corporations writing open-source code and sharing it with other corporations and the world. Companies don't sell software so much as provide various human and computer services. Corporations aren't evil, they can provide funding and organizational structure that is actually pretty valuable. And so on.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > Should Apple not have a right to make their own proprietary language? Should Apple's users not have the right to use, share, study, improve, extend and share improvements and extensions to the languages and tools they use? Or, in answer to your question: no.

MBCook 12y ago

> we live in a world where something new and interesting like Swift may never be non-proprietary. Should Apple not have a right to make their own proprietary language? Let's not forget that Apple is a big part of why LLVM is as well known as it is.

jacquesm 12y ago
Proprietary language? You mean like a single platform language? What a complete waste that would be. Languages can't be proprietary, anybody can re-implement some language if there is a spec. Whether you can name it the same or not is another issue but non-proprietary languages usually don't survive for very long so it would be in Apples own interest that swift ends up in as many hands as possible. Oracle still doesn't understand this completely about Java, maybe Apple will never understand it about Swift, meanwhile all those non-proprietary languages will flourish.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  > ... proprietary languages usually don't survive for very long so it would be in Apples own interest that swift ends up in as many hands as possible. This is wrong thinking and it misunderstands Apple's goals and motives for Swift. First and foremost, it's a replacement for Objective-C, which is itself effectively proprietary - there are open source compilers and some legacy openstep implementations, but the driving force behind the language has been exclusively Apple for at least a decade now. In that context, Swift has the same expected level of success as Objective-C, owing to the community that exists around its predecessor. And, for Apple, the important metrics for success with Swift are entirely focused around the effectiveness of the language in support their platform. Given the relative popularity of the platform, they can reasonably expect that people will use the language to gain access to Apple's userbase, because it's a valuable commodity. Second, Apple doesn't care if Swift has a long life, at least, not per se. They want it to be used and to be successful because it's where they're probably moving their platform in the medium to long term. But they're not invested in the longevity of the language so much as they're invested in their platform. If, in another decade, they decide that Swift has outlived its usefulness, they'll replace it and let it die. Any other scenario for the language failing entails Apple faltering as a company, in which case, they don't really care about the Swift's success. (I snipped a "non-" off proprietary, because it didn't seem like what you were arguing from the rest of the post.)
__david__ 12y ago
Apple of course has the right to do whatever they please, but the world would be better if their neat new language was available in other contexts than just their system. It pretty much guarantees that the only people who will use it will be a certain class of iOS developer. I will probably never use it unless I am forced to for a job or something. Swift is currently in the same position that C# was in before Mono. It will probably be popular in certain circles, but it's not going to ever dominate the language field like Java, Javascript, and C do. Microsoft's recent freeing of the .NET infrastructure makes it a real, bona fied choice now. Apple should follow suit early, for the good of the language.
- azinman2 12y ago
  Objective-c, despite having compilers on other platforms, 99% of the time is used for programs running on an apple platform. It just hasn't made it into other universes, despite itself having many nice qualities (especially over c++ imho). Swift is Apple upgrading their own environment, which as an iOS dev is welcome. I'm not sure the cross-platform framework problem is one that helps them or makes much money compared to what is status quo. But at least their proprietary world got better for those of us who write for it.
- dgreensp 12y ago
  In the world RMS wants, Apple would not have the right to develop Swift and make it proprietary. That's pretty incredible to me, and far more relevant than discussing Swift's barriers to adoption. In RMS's world, hackers close ranks to make sure the power stays in the hands of the people, not the corporations. Sure, corporations might develop a bit of proprietary code now and then, but they are outpaced by armies of hackers writing GPLed code and replicating any innovations they develop. All the best compiler toolchains are GPLed in this world, and corporations are basically forced to participate in the Free Software movement, or suckle at its teat. It would not be possible in practice to sell software, because any software your computer could run would have to be GPLed! A lot of other stuff happened instead. Now we have hackers working at corporations writing open-source code and sharing it with other corporations and the world. Companies don't sell software so much as provide various human and computer services. Corporations aren't evil, they can provide funding and organizational structure that is actually pretty valuable. And so on.
wtbob 12y ago
> Should Apple not have a right to make their own proprietary language? Should Apple's users not have the right to use, share, study, improve, extend and share improvements and extensions to the languages and tools they use? Or, in answer to your question: no.