Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 14 2015, @10:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the swift-rise-in-popularity dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @01:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @01:44AM (#196316)

    Excellent point, but can you you please tell me how to get a patent on an algorithm? Using your answer I would like to patent an algorithm for rare steak cooking. Then proceeded to collect royalties from every steakhouse, it's a first to file system after all...

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 15 2015, @02:00AM

    I agree strongly with Richard that there should not be frivolous patents.

    For Haim to have invented the Edge Highlighter is no different that Bell inventing the telephone. The simple fact that something is an algorithm does not mean it is not an invention one should not be permitted to patent.

    I invented a compressor that I requested my employer patent. They got acquired before the patent was filed, the new owner dropped my invention on the floor. I have many improvements, one may patent improvements so quite likely I will file.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday June 15 2015, @01:38PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday June 15 2015, @01:38PM (#196480) Journal

      If you think algorithms should be patentable, then perhaps scientific discoveries and mathematical formulas should also be patentable? Should Einstein have been able to get a patent on e=mc^2?

      That many algorithms are genuinely innovative does not change the fundamental brokenness of the patent system. The point of patents is to encourage innovation, and the mechanism is through an artificial monopoly that, ideally, can be used to demand payment in exchange for permission to use, thereby simultaneously rewarding the inventor and determining just how valuable the invention really is. Nice, if it worked. But it doesn't. Often, the system hinders innovation. Ironic. Among the many problems, it unintentionally plays upon the fear of loss, makes otherwise sensible people cling to "their" inventions, hide them for fear of someone "stealing" the ideas. It also promotes a "mother may I" permission seeking culture that is completely unnecessary and detrimental to independent thinking. The notion that, before writing any code, you ought to search through thousands of patents to make sure you're not about to infringe some, is of course ridiculous, and is routinely ignored.

      There are other, better ways to encourage innovation. We should develop and refine them. Perhaps a system of independent crowdfunding organizations, all using different methods to raise money and different criteria to judge value. Free digital notary services would be invaluable for sorting out priorities, would be much better than the fallacious method of sending a sealed envelope to yourself, to "prove" the date.