Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #76592 > unrolled thread

What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-14 10:00 -0400
    Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? nospam@ab-katrinedal.dk (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2015-06-14 18:54 +0200
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-14 13:41 -0400
        Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-14 14:01 -0400
          Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-14 22:16 -0400
            Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-14 23:05 -0400
              Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-06-15 02:05 -0400
                Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-15 02:09 -0400
        Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-06-15 12:05 +0100
    Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-06-14 19:49 -0500
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-15 10:05 -0400
    Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-06-15 14:15 +0000
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-15 16:29 -0400
        Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-06-18 05:53 +0000
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-06-16 09:15 +1200
    Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-06-15 08:08 -0700
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-15 16:31 -0400
        Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-06-15 16:48 -0700
          Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-15 20:36 -0400
          Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-06-16 08:02 -0700
        Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-17 13:19 +1200
          Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-06-17 08:40 -0400
          Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-06-17 08:17 -0700
            Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-18 13:30 +1200
              Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-06-18 09:46 -0700
                Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-06-18 17:01 +0000
                Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-19 12:35 +1200
    Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-18 17:53 -0700
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-06-19 17:59 +1200
        Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-18 23:19 -0700
      Re: What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2015-06-19 00:39 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#76592 — What make you of Swift 2 being Open Source?

I looked at some parts of the keynote the other day and the declaration 
that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck me as ... odd. 
  Not that it's being made open but that the extent of that is limited 
to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I suppose).

Where the benefits of Swift may be mighty I somehow doubt that the Linux 
community will leap at it.  Except perhaps the Android community.

If Apple want Swift to become the development language of the next 20 
years[1] then they should have pushed it out to Windows as well which 
has a much larger developer community.

----------

[1] WWDC 2015 "For 20 years to come. We think Swift should be everywhere 
and used by everyone. We're going to do something really big. Today 
we're announcing Swift will be open source."
				             - Craig Federighi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#76606

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> I looked at some parts of the keynote the other day and the declaration
> that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck me as ... odd.
>   Not that it's being made open but that the extent of that is limited
> to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I suppose).
> 
> Where the benefits of Swift may be mighty I somehow doubt that the Linux
> community will leap at it.  Except perhaps the Android community.

While Apple would prefer developers to write IOS only apps, the reality
is that many do cross-platform development. That implies that most of
the app is written in something like C++ and only the UI code is a thin
icing of ObjC or Swift on the cake.

Opensourcing means the whole thing can be written in Swift.

> If Apple want Swift to become the development language of the next 20
> years[1] then they should have pushed it out to Windows as well which
> has a much larger developer community.

Only Android is important. Besides, Microsoft will be doing the work
anyways.

-- 
Mvh./Regards,    Niels Jørgen Kruse,    Vanløse, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76607

When Apple announced new Music service was to be available on Android,
it sort of made it necessary for Apple to port their proprietary Swift
language to Linux (which I assume is what Android developpers use), at
which point it makes sense to open source it.

If ITunes is to be rewritten in Swift, then I suspect you will see Swift
ported to Windows as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76608

In article <557dbcc7$0$1625$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> When Apple announced new Music service was to be available on Android,
> it sort of made it necessary for Apple to port their proprietary Swift
> language to Linux (which I assume is what Android developpers use), at
> which point it makes sense to open source it.

no it didn't.

there's no need to use swift to write an apple music app.

> If ITunes is to be rewritten in Swift, then I suspect you will see Swift
> ported to Windows as well.

no need to do that either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76636

On 15-06-14 14:01, nospam wrote:

> there's no need to use swift to write an apple music app.

If the OS_X and IOS versions are written in Swift, then it makes sense
to keep a common source code for all platforms and hence port Swift to
Android (aka Swift compilers on Linux to target Android)

Apple has rewritten a lot of stuff in Swift for Yosemite (hence the
"beta" feel for it with so many bugs initially).  If this is the
platform of choice for Apple today, it is unlikely they want to develop
new appls in another language (such as the new music streaming app)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76644

In article <557e3575$0$29473$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > there's no need to use swift to write an apple music app.
> 
> If the OS_X and IOS versions are written in Swift, then it makes sense
> to keep a common source code for all platforms and hence port Swift to
> Android (aka Swift compilers on Linux to target Android)

there may be a common core in portable c/c++ but other than that,
there's no reason to write the windows and android versions in swift.

> Apple has rewritten a lot of stuff in Swift for Yosemite (hence the
> "beta" feel for it with so many bugs initially).  If this is the
> platform of choice for Apple today, it is unlikely they want to develop
> new appls in another language (such as the new music streaming app)

yosemite has very little in swift because nobody outside of the swift
team knew about swift while yosemite was being developed.

el capitan, on the other hand, has a lot of swift, which is also a much
safer language resulting in fewer bugs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76646

On 15-06-14 23:05, nospam wrote:

> yosemite has very little in swift because nobody outside of the swift
> team knew about swift while yosemite was being developed.

That is debatable. Consider all the wi-fi problems for Yosemite,
allegedly because Apple rewrite the stack which used to work fine. Why
would you rewrite stuff that worked ? Because you are adopting a new
language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76647

In article <557e6b47$0$64287$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > yosemite has very little in swift because nobody outside of the swift
> > team knew about swift while yosemite was being developed.
> 
> That is debatable.

no it isn't. swift was known by very few people for most of its
development right up until it's announcement last year.

> Consider all the wi-fi problems for Yosemite,
> allegedly because Apple rewrite the stack which used to work fine. Why
> would you rewrite stuff that worked ? Because you are adopting a new
> language.

not necessarily.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76649

On 14/06/2015 18:41, JF Mezei wrote:
> When Apple announced new Music service was to be available on Android,
> it sort of made it necessary for Apple to port their proprietary Swift
> language to Linux (which I assume is what Android developpers use), at
> which point it makes sense to open source it.

Most Android developers use Android Studio or Eclipse on Windows or OS 
X... the latter especially if they also produce a version of their app 
for iOS.

-- 
Xbox: GallusNumpty  Steam: scottishwildcat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76623

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400, Alan Browne 
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> I looked at some parts of the keynote the other day and the declaration 
> that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck me as ... odd. 
>   Not that it's being made open but that the extent of that is limited 
> to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I suppose).

Well, since OS X is POSIX already it's probably pretty easy to push it 
out for the 2% of the world that uses Linux/BSD/similar.  Windows might 
take more work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76656

On 2015-06-14 20:49, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I looked at some parts of the keynote the other day and the declaration
>> that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck me as ... odd.
>>    Not that it's being made open but that the extent of that is limited
>> to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I suppose).
>
> Well, since OS X is POSIX already it's probably pretty easy to push it
> out for the 2% of the world that uses Linux/BSD/similar.  Windows might
> take more work.

A lot of compilers have OS switches.  Sure OS X is 'nix and that's 
easier, but as Apple develop code for Windows (iTunes for example) using 
the same source code it shouldn't be too much trouble - it's certainly a 
much larger market.

So in turn, Windows-only developers would see a growing market 
opportunity in compiling for Mac.  (Not that they'd rush immediately to 
converting code to Swift).  But the pathway to multiple platform market 
could be easier.  Of course they'd have to learn to contend with that 
many armed monster called X-code....

There may be x-platform dis-incentives for Apple such as Microsoft's 
forays into mobile ... as thin and ineffective as they are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76657

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> Not that it's being made open but that the extent of that is limited 
> to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I suppose).

It’s just open source, so it’s not “limited” like that.  There is no
obligation to support every platform in the world just because you freely
give away your code.

> Where the benefits of Swift may be mighty I somehow doubt that the Linux 
> community will leap at it.  Except perhaps the Android community.

If they didn’t leap at open source Objective-C implementations, they
probably aren’t going to jump at Swift.  These days, the underlying
language is only a tiny factor in supporting a software platform.

> If Apple want Swift to become the development language of the next 20 
> years[1] then they should have pushed it out to Windows as well which 
> has a much larger developer community.

Windows is not the platform of the next 20 years.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76671

On 2015-06-15 10:15, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Not that it's being made open but that the extent of that is limited
>> to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I suppose).
>
> It’s just open source, so it’s not “limited” like that.  There is no
> obligation to support every platform in the world just because you freely
> give away your code.

I certainly did not mean it in that sense at all.  But rather that it 
would be an opportunity to bring more developers to the Apple-verse.

>
>> Where the benefits of Swift may be mighty I somehow doubt that the Linux
>> community will leap at it.  Except perhaps the Android community.
>
> If they didn’t leap at open source Objective-C implementations, they
> probably aren’t going to jump at Swift.  These days, the underlying
> language is only a tiny factor in supporting a software platform.
>
>> If Apple want Swift to become the development language of the next 20
>> years[1] then they should have pushed it out to Windows as well which
>> has a much larger developer community.
>
> Windows is not the platform of the next 20 years.

It will still be the dominant desktop environment for at least another 
10 year, and probably 20.  More the reason for Apple to get that 
developer community familiar with its own preferred compiler and for 
that matter, tools.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76763

For your reference, records indicate that 
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> I certainly did not mean it in that sense at all.  But rather that it 
> would be an opportunity to bring more developers to the Apple-verse.

That’s just not the way software development works.  Nobody who is a fan
of what Windows offers has been sitting around waiting for Swift (or
Objective-C before that).  In the same way, nobody working with Apple
technology was dreaming of the day C# was opened up.  Moves like these
play to the base, not the outsiders.  It’s mainly about convincing
people to stay with your primary platform.

> > Windows is not the platform of the next 20 years.
> 
> It will still be the dominant desktop environment for at least another 
> 10 year, and probably 20.  More the reason for Apple to get that 
> developer community familiar with its own preferred compiler and for 
> that matter, tools.

Better to just let them die.  Apple has enough eager developers that they
don’t need to be courting the ones who are playing hard to get.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76674

In article <mlmmlk$12o$1@dont-email.me>, Doc O'Leary
<droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> wrote:
> > 
> > If Apple want Swift to become the development language of the next 20 
> > years[1] then they should have pushed it out to Windows as well which 
> > has a much larger developer community.
> 
> Windows is not the platform of the next 20 years.

Windoze has been the platform EVER.

Besides which Apple is using making for Apple developers. Android,
Windoze, Amiga, Potato, Aspargus Roll, etc. are all completely
irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76666

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> declaration that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck
> me as ... odd. Not that it's being made open but that the extent of
> that is limited to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I
> suppose).

how does one limit open source

your post sounds contradictory to itself

are there proprietary blobs that only run on osx,ios,linux

what license is it released under

what is swift
is it just some libs and a compiler
oh and a gui i suppose










 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76672

On 2015-06-15 11:08, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> declaration that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck
>> me as ... odd. Not that it's being made open but that the extent of
>> that is limited to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I
>> suppose).
>
> how does one limit open source

By not including libraries to the underlying OS.

By license limitations.


>
> your post sounds contradictory to itself

How so?

>
> are there proprietary blobs that only run on osx,ios,linux
>
> what license is it released under
>
> what is swift
> is it just some libs and a compiler
> oh and a gui i suppose

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76677

In article <xMWdneqXTJmPq-LInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-06-15 11:08, Electric Comet wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> declaration that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck
> >> me as ... odd. Not that it's being made open but that the extent of
> >> that is limited to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I
> >> suppose).
> >
> > how does one limit open source
> 
> By not including libraries to the underlying OS.
> 
> By license limitations.
> 

There went "open source", then. 

Either it's open source, meaning that anybody can do anything (other 
than claiming it as their own and trying to sell it) they like with it, 
or it's not open source. Period.

Anything more restrictive than that is bullshit travelling under the 
open source flag.

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76678

On 2015-06-15 19:48, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <xMWdneqXTJmPq-LInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-06-15 11:08, Electric Comet wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> declaration that Swift would be Open Sourced (OS X and Linux) struck
>>>> me as ... odd. Not that it's being made open but that the extent of
>>>> that is limited to OS X, iOS and Linux (Android too by extension, I
>>>> suppose).
>>>
>>> how does one limit open source
>>
>> By not including libraries to the underlying OS.
>>
>> By license limitations.
>>
>
> There went "open source", then.


You're stating that in reply to something already a degree of freedom 
away from the intent of Apple wrt Swift.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76695

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:48:08 -0700
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:

> There went "open source", then. 

right












 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web