Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Apple is open sourcing Swift Build

    (www.swift.org)
    612 points dayanruben | 11 comments | 01 Feb 25 16:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    picafrost ◴[01 Feb 25 17:27 UTC] No.42900086[source]▶
    Swift is a nice language. I'm glad to see it being released from the clutches of Apple. I can only imagine how large of a task this is. I hope some day to be able to use it. The last time I tried a cross-platform project with it I switched languages due to `URLSession.shared.data` (a network request) being unable to compile on Linux.
    replies(1): >>42900326 #
    1. isodev ◴[01 Feb 25 17:49 UTC] No.42900326[source]▶
    Is it really being released? Although some parts of the language and build chains are technically open source (as in, you can see the code), the project is still completely controlled by Apple at the top.
    replies(3): >>42900476 #>>42901505 #>>42908104 #
    2. cvwright ◴[01 Feb 25 18:04 UTC] No.42900476[source]▶
    They have also been working on a completely open source version of the Foundation library for use on Linux and other platforms. (IIRC the URLSession type is part of Foundation, as are many core building blocks that you need for making a real application.)
    replies(1): >>42901549 #
    3. st3fan ◴[01 Feb 25 19:46 UTC] No.42901505[source]▶
    You are wrong about "some parts" - you can browse github.com/swiftlang to find out.

    About control - serious question: how is this different from for example Rust, Go, Zig or Python? For each of those you can submit a change proposal through an official process and you can submit code changes through a pull request.

    But also for each of those there is a non-zero chance that a smaller group of people who do governance of the project, the core team or leads or module owners, will either tell you that your proposal or code change is not appropriate or compatible with the project's goals or they will help you to merge it. That is exactly the same for Swift.

    Why is Apple suddenly a dictator while every other project also has an agenda and strict rules that are being enforced?

    Is the expectation to just be able to do whatever you want in a project like Swift?

    replies(4): >>42901588 #>>42901603 #>>42901886 #>>42905297 #
    4. ◴[01 Feb 25 19:50 UTC] No.42901549[source]▶
    5. iamkonstantin ◴[01 Feb 25 19:54 UTC] No.42901588[source]▶
    > how is this different from for example Rust, Go, Zig or Python

    I believe op means Swift is different because Apple is the gatekeeper at the top of the Swift project https://www.swift.org/community/#project-lead

    By contrast, other open languages usually have elected leadership and aren’t directly subject to a specific corporation.

    replies(1): >>42904361 #
    6. troupo ◴[01 Feb 25 19:56 UTC] No.42901603[source]▶
    > About control - serious question: how is this different from for example Rust, Go, Zig or Python?

    You can ask Chris Lattner about how many many changes were forced through the language before they were ready, or even properly designed, because Apple needed them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYbgbrQ-v8

    7. isodev ◴[01 Feb 25 20:23 UTC] No.42901886[source]▶
    You’re only focusing on access to source code, the comment is about leadership and decision making. Remember the OmniSharp story around VSCode from just two years ago? It’s a very high profile example of what can (and eventually will) happen with corporate-controlled projects.

    Swift can’t evolve or even exist without Apple and so unless you’re Apple, then Swift is too great of a risk.

    replies(1): >>42902035 #
    8. chefandy ◴[01 Feb 25 20:40 UTC] No.42902035{3}[source]▶
    > Swift can’t evolve or even exist without Apple and so unless you’re Apple, then Swift is too great of a risk.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's Apache licensed so you can just fork it. It's got pretty active development and a whole lot of software developers that use it-- if Apple decides to somehow lock down the repo and stop accepting PRs, what's stopping a group of developers from just making their own branch? It's got non-Apple cross-platform GUI frameworks, good support in editors... Sure it's 100% not as good off of Apple systems but I'm not sure what they'd be expected to do MORE than open it up with an Apache license?

    And OmniSharp works just fine in VSCode from what I see. What am I missing?

    9. qaq ◴[02 Feb 25 00:56 UTC] No.42904361{3}[source]▶
    Go is pretty much controlled by Google I don't follow it closely but there was a ton of drama around AWS influence on Rust through hiring key Rust devs. Zig has BDFL Python had BDFL
    10. geodel ◴[02 Feb 25 03:00 UTC] No.42905297[source]▶
    Basically, if companies who created language dump it on Github and let open source community take over it is nonviable. Because who will pay for project development that these mega corps dumped on community and washed their hands off.

    On the other hand if companies take ownership, provide financing, design, vision, evolution of language, compiler, libraries and ecosystem etc it is nonviable because it is dictatorship now.

    Solution is to let drive by commentators to have full commit rights on open source repositories if they want to change any part of language. Anything less unacceptable.

    11. carlosjobim ◴[02 Feb 25 11:57 UTC] No.42908104[source]▶
    Can't you fork it then? Isn't that what open source is about?