←back to thread

612 points dayanruben | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
uhura ◴[] No.42901158[source]
I believe that this long game of Swift being "good for everything" but "better for Apple platforms" will be detrimental to the language. This does not help the language nor seems to bring more people to the ecosystem.

Competitors seems to have a combination of: - Being more open-source - Have more contributors - Have a narrower scope

Maybe they should consider open sourcing all the tooling (like Xcode) otherwise the gap will only grow over time when compared to other languages.

replies(10): >>42901489 #>>42901515 #>>42901558 #>>42902281 #>>42902484 #>>42903459 #>>42903586 #>>42903797 #>>42905687 #>>42906498 #
jitl ◴[] No.42903797[source]
I don't get this reaction.

Apple: here, we're open-sourcing this previously closed-source Apple-specific thing that made Swift better on Apple platforms. We're moving the Apple stuff into a plugin so Windows and Linux can be equal peers to Apple in the new system. We've implemented preliminary support for Windows & Linux and plan to continue work to bring them up to parity.

Hacker News: I believe that this long game of Swift being "good for everything" but "better for Apple platforms" will be detrimental to the language. This does not help the language nor seems to bring more people to the ecosystem.

Like, what more do you want from them? For them to only open-source Swift Build once they've fully implemented complete parity for Windows and Linux? In the years you'd be waiting for full parity, we'd still see this same kind of comment on every story about swift, asking when they're going to open source a production-level build system.

replies(5): >>42903995 #>>42904739 #>>42905069 #>>42906990 #>>42919105 #
bluepizza ◴[] No.42904739[source]
I don't get this reaction.

Almost every language in the world: here's the spec, the tooling, and everything you need to use, master, and expand this language. Please use it.

Apple: sorry, Mac only.

Like, I want Apple to do the bare minimum that everyone else is doing.

replies(1): >>42905102 #
easeout ◴[] No.42905102{3}[source]
Swift announced Linux support in 2015 when it went open source. Aspects of parity have taken years, and the Objective-C interop that isn't relevant outside Apple platforms but made adoption take off at all occupied a lot of early effort, but every Swift talk at FOSDEM today was about embedded or Linux server applications, or platform-agnostic C++ and Java interop. What can you possibly mean by "Mac only" or "bare minimum"?
replies(2): >>42905273 #>>42905601 #
bluepizza ◴[] No.42905273{4}[source]
Core libs and foundation for starters?

https://www.swift.org/blog/future-of-foundation/

replies(1): >>42905394 #
easeout ◴[] No.42905394{5}[source]
This, right?

https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-foundation

replies(2): >>42905540 #>>42905666 #
bluepizza ◴[] No.42905666{6}[source]
Which was not open source from the start?
replies(1): >>42906755 #
1. easeout ◴[] No.42906755{7}[source]
Foundation wasn't made to be part of the Swift project until recently. 25 years ago it was the "foundation" of Cocoa, the Mac OS X API derived from NEXTSTEP. It was an Apple platform thing explicitly—now it is remade in Swift and is part of the Swift project.