5 ms·

How about opening Swift compiler source code (and porting it to other platforms?) And, what are the OS requirements for xcode 6.3? Is it possible to install it

How about opening Swift compiler source code (and porting it to other platforms?) And, what are the OS requirements for xcode 6.3? Is it possible to install it to old macosx system (snow leopard, for example)?

josh64 12y ago
It says this release (6.3) requires Yosemite (but includes SDKs for 10.9 and 10.10). For the record, 5.x doesn't even run on Snow Leopard.
- WildUtah 12y ago
  "5.x doesn't even run on Snow Leopard." Which is a shame because OSX 10.6.8 was the most stable, zippiest performance OSX ever and still had the nice virtual desktop. Sadly I lament the old virtual desktop. I'd still be on it if I could be.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    Well, I hear Apple II was stable too. 10.6 is how many years old by now?
    - WildUtah 12y ago
      10.6 did things Apple II wasn't capable of.
      - coldtea 12y ago
        And Apple II did things Oric Atmos could not even dream of.
ChrisLTD 12y ago
Shouldn’t Apple finish designing the language before they even consider porting it elsewhere?
sigzero 12y ago
Stop it with the "open and porting". They are not going to do it.
- oleganza 12y ago
  I'm not so sure. Chris Lattner was giving some hints around Twitter on how big deal they want to make out of Swift (that is, a ubiquitous systems program). This gives me hope that it'll become open as Clang and ported to other platforms.
  - notsony 12y ago
    Just like FaceTime. It won't happen and all the rumors and gossip based on a few comments will just give false hope to people. Swift was designed to lock-in developers just when objc<->java converters were gaining popularity.
    - millerm 12y ago
      Was introduced to this today: http://www.elementscompiler.com/elements/silver/ http://www.elementscompiler.com/elements/silver/
    - oleganza 12y ago
      FaceTime is different. I heard how everyone at Apple was surprised when Jobs mentioned "open standard". Here, on the other hand, core team is looking forward making Swift a bigger deal than just Apple's pet language. Sorry, talks about "designed to lock in" is a non-falsifiable theory. If you wanted to build a language for the future and even make it open once it's tested and polished, you would do the same thing: gather a small team to work privately without distractions, make it grow in a controlled environment (so you can safely make breaking changes fixable with some migration tools) and when it's mature enough, release it wide open. I think there's a practical reason for Apple not to lock-in using a programming language. Proprietary tools limit amount of talent being provided to the platform. Really smart brains would spend time either in suboptimal open platforms or choose some other garden (e.g. .NET, Java). It's one thing to lock in consumers into an ecosystem, it's another to detract smart developers by threatening them with lock in.
jernfrost 12y ago
Judging by previous Apple behaviour they will wait until Swift is more mature before open sourcing it. I suspect it will be 1.5 - 2 years before we see an open source version.
ezfe 12y ago
Xcode 6.3 requires OS X 10.10 Yosemite

josh64 12y ago

It says this release (6.3) requires Yosemite (but includes SDKs for 10.9 and 10.10). For the record, 5.x doesn't even run on Snow Leopard.

WildUtah 12y ago
"5.x doesn't even run on Snow Leopard." Which is a shame because OSX 10.6.8 was the most stable, zippiest performance OSX ever and still had the nice virtual desktop. Sadly I lament the old virtual desktop. I'd still be on it if I could be.
- coldtea 12y ago
  Well, I hear Apple II was stable too. 10.6 is how many years old by now?
  - WildUtah 12y ago
    10.6 did things Apple II wasn't capable of.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      And Apple II did things Oric Atmos could not even dream of.

ChrisLTD 12y ago

Shouldn’t Apple finish designing the language before they even consider porting it elsewhere?

sigzero 12y ago

Stop it with the "open and porting". They are not going to do it.

oleganza 12y ago
I'm not so sure. Chris Lattner was giving some hints around Twitter on how big deal they want to make out of Swift (that is, a ubiquitous systems program). This gives me hope that it'll become open as Clang and ported to other platforms.
- notsony 12y ago
  Just like FaceTime. It won't happen and all the rumors and gossip based on a few comments will just give false hope to people. Swift was designed to lock-in developers just when objc<->java converters were gaining popularity.
  - millerm 12y ago
    Was introduced to this today: http://www.elementscompiler.com/elements/silver/ http://www.elementscompiler.com/elements/silver/
  - oleganza 12y ago
    FaceTime is different. I heard how everyone at Apple was surprised when Jobs mentioned "open standard". Here, on the other hand, core team is looking forward making Swift a bigger deal than just Apple's pet language. Sorry, talks about "designed to lock in" is a non-falsifiable theory. If you wanted to build a language for the future and even make it open once it's tested and polished, you would do the same thing: gather a small team to work privately without distractions, make it grow in a controlled environment (so you can safely make breaking changes fixable with some migration tools) and when it's mature enough, release it wide open. I think there's a practical reason for Apple not to lock-in using a programming language. Proprietary tools limit amount of talent being provided to the platform. Really smart brains would spend time either in suboptimal open platforms or choose some other garden (e.g. .NET, Java). It's one thing to lock in consumers into an ecosystem, it's another to detract smart developers by threatening them with lock in.

jernfrost 12y ago

Judging by previous Apple behaviour they will wait until Swift is more mature before open sourcing it. I suspect it will be 1.5 - 2 years before we see an open source version.

ezfe 12y ago

Xcode 6.3 requires OS X 10.10 Yosemite