141–150 of 458 posts
https://swift.org/lldb/#why-combine-the-repl-and-debugger
I don't know any other repl that can do that. I know you can debug in (some) lisps and smalltalk, but I don't know if you can set breakpoints too. Still a nice and welcome feature.
>I think we should use GPL v3 instead.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that while pushing two high level but performant languages (Objective-C and Swift) Apple wrote their Swift compiler in C++?
And of course it is not possible to write a Swift compiler in Swift before the language exists.
So no, not odd at all. Quite logical actually.
It's not just you! http://swift.org looks down from here.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that while pushing two high level but performant languages (Objective-C and Swift) Apple wrote their Swift compiler in C++?
By using C++ they could ramp up the compiler much faster and rely all improvements done to LLVM.
Eventually if the language succeeds in the market at large, they can decide to bootstrap it.
Although I am a fan of bootstrapping, I also see a good value to expend development resources elsewhere until a language reaches wider adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's cool to see that it was basically all Lattner at the beginning and his decisions about the license/exception still stand. EDIT: License/Header in each of files were apparently retroactively added.
Look carefully at that copyright date: 2014-2015. They've rewritten history.
Github repo is live now. https://github.com/apple/swift First ever commit found here https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/afc81c1855bf711315b8e5...
https://github.com/apple/ This organization has no public repositories.
Apache 2.0 License + Runtime Library Exception + copyright owned by the contributor (i.e. no assignment or CLA) + good community structure and documentation + code of conduct... well done, Apple!
Anybody knows what effects of the "copyright owned by the contributor" are in the context of Swift's Apache license? I guess the "good side" is that the lawyers of other companies probably like when the code made by their programmers keeps being copyrighted by the company. But it is still an Apache license, so they can't demand too much from the users of the code. Still, are there any negative aspects? Any imaginable…
The way it works is this: Apple is making Swift available to you (and others) under Apache 2.0. You send in some changes, which you make available to Apple (and others) under Apache 2.0. Everyone is on equal footing, and Apple can't relicense it to someone else on terms of their choosing that involve, for example, neutering the patent grant's self-destruct clause.
This was the default way that open source worked for years, before people started cargo-culting the (totally unnecessary) CLA process into their projects.
What it means from a practical standpoint, though, is that the project is easier to contribute to, what with the impedance imposed by a CLA process being, you know, non-existent.
This is good news (hoping the github link etc will start working in a day or two)! One side effect of swift being open sourced is that more developers will start looking at it for server side development. However, I personally think that Swift will continue to have strong reliance on Apple (esp considering that most external Swift developers will come from iOS development). So, till I see Apple showing interest in Sw…