←back to thread

Apple is open sourcing Swift Build

(www.swift.org)
612 points dayanruben | 6 comments | 01 Feb 25 16:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
krupan ◴[01 Feb 25 20:07 UTC] No.42901726[source]▶
The discussion here reminds me so much of early C# days. It was being touted as open source and cross platform back then, and Microsoft even hired a top GNOME developer to port it to Linux and GNOME was going to be rewritten in C#. It was going to be amazing. Never quite panned out.
replies(6): >>42901942 #>>42902129 #>>42902287 #>>42902325 #>>42902819 #>>42905920 #
homarp ◴[01 Feb 25 20:30 UTC] No.42901942[source]▶
do you remember who was the 'top GNOME developer'?
replies(2): >>42901994 #>>42902003 #
IshKebab ◴[01 Feb 25 20:37 UTC] No.42902003[source]▶
Probably talking about Miguel de Icaza. I think his history is wrong though. I don't recall any talk of rewriting GNOME in C# - they were all about their pet language Vala.

And Miguel started Mono way before Microsoft made C# cross-platform. At that point they were antagonists.

replies(1): >>42902377 #
tamlin ◴[01 Feb 25 21:11 UTC] No.42902377[source]▶
Microsoft had a research version of the CLR called Rotor (2002) that predated Mono (2004). Rotor built for Windows, FreeBSD, and macOs, albeit with a not-very-open license.

When Mono came along, the internal position at Microsoft was surprisingly positive. There was a dev slide deck that went into Mono in some depth. And a telling slide that said it wasn't a threat because the performance wasn't competitive at the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Languag...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

replies(1): >>42902792 #
1. caspper69 ◴[01 Feb 25 21:57 UTC] No.42902792[source]▶
Rotor was BSD licensed, so I suppose if that’s your definition of a not very open license…
replies(2): >>42903070 #>>42907371 #
2. dcrazy ◴[01 Feb 25 22:25 UTC] No.42903070[source]▶
Was it originally BSD-licensed, or did it start out as the MS Public Source License or whatever it was called?

We could go back and check on Codeplex… oh wait.

replies(1): >>42911096 #
3. tamlin ◴[02 Feb 25 09:11 UTC] No.42907371[source]▶
Rotor had it's own license:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Language_...

I have various snapshots of the Rotor 1 and 2 sources around and they have the SSCLI license. There is a file that contains BSD licensed code (pal\rotor_pal.h).

replies(1): >>42911075 #
4. caspper69 ◴[02 Feb 25 19:34 UTC] No.42911075[source]▶
Thank you for the follow up. You know after I posted that my thought was am I mistaking their BSD release for a BSD license, and of course I was. The memory isn’t what it used to be.
5. caspper69 ◴[02 Feb 25 19:36 UTC] No.42911096[source]▶
As a sibling poster updated it was some bastardized shared source license that never caught on.

Thank goodness MS got over their allergy to open source licenses, as they seem to prefer MIT nowadays for their releases.

My apologies for misremembering the details and being snarky. Humble pie eaten and enjoyed. :)

replies(1): >>42934945 #
6. tamlin ◴[04 Feb 25 16:49 UTC] No.42934945{3}[source]▶
No worries, and no humble pie required. Peace, good happiness.