SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The hype around Swift is near non-existent by Apple standards, yet the language has attracted high praise since its release last year. Swift is essentially one of the very few Apple products representing a clear departure from the hardware-led approach Steve Jobs took to the business. If Stack Overflow's 2015 dev survey is anything to go by, it looks as if the Swift language might have potential to really shake things up.
Might the days of Apple programmers relying upon objective C be numbered?
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple's Swift Language Might Actually be Good
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 49 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
-- Mark Twain
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Sunday June 14 2015, @11:30PM
My understanding is swif tis basically wrapping over the ObjC APIs, so its 1:1 functionality, or put in another way, Swift is a new language with ABI compatibility with ObjC message passing. I tried to play with ObjC, and while I think in some ways its better than C++, TBH, the syntax is very hard to grok. This is compounded by the fact that a lot of stuff at ObjC is detected at runtime vs compile time.
Please note, I'm just a hobbist, never did a major project in ObjC
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Disagree) by kaszz on Sunday June 14 2015, @11:59PM
I'm just suspicious that this falls into:
* Hey cool we have written our own language that doesn't add anything than more book reading for you and fragmentation
* We must change language every so often to keep up with fashion because we lack impulse control
* Not invented here!
* We need this extra thing so we make a whole new language
* Our developers have skills to make use of other platforms so lets force them to use our language so they forget others
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @02:03AM
> Our developers have skills to make use of other platforms so lets force them to use our language so they forget others
They are saying some of the right words, [opensource.com] deeds are still pending.
(Score: 5, Informative) by BasilBrush on Monday June 15 2015, @05:19AM
* Hey cool we have written our own language that doesn't add anything than more book reading for you and fragmentation
There are a number of unique and very nice features in Swift.
* We must change language every so often to keep up with fashion because we lack impulse control
Apple has been using Obj-C as it's major language for 15 years. OSX(including it's pervious incarnation as NextStep) for 26 years.
* Not invented here!
There is no existing language that has the fundamental requirement that it supports the existing Cocoa frameworks.
* We need this extra thing so we make a whole new language
Apple already has de-facto control over objective-c and has been adding extra things over the years. Including this year.
* Our developers have skills to make use of other platforms so lets force them to use our language so they forget others
No change over Obj-C.
So all your suspicions are stupid.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 16 2015, @06:35PM
Does the Cocoa framework bring any new possibilities to the computing except being able to do graphics in the Apple ecosystem?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday June 15 2015, @02:03PM
I took a cursory look at Swift, and get the impression it's Python with curly braces instead of indentation (or, can think of it as C/C++ without semicolons and with better looping), with much simpler syntax for using the Objective C/C++/Cocoa libraries than Objective C/C++ itself.
I think the religious fervor over Object Oriented Programming faded years ago, and now people can see that while OOP has its points, it also has plenty of issues. I was never sure about the value of the whole idea of an inheritance hierarchy, just seemed too rigid to try to organize data that way.