SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 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This discussion has been archived.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.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday June 15 2015, @01:38PM
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.