281–290 of 458 posts
If you're new to Swift, I maintain a list of blogs, etc about Swift. I just past 2500 urls: http://www.h4labs.com/dev/ios/swift.html It can be viewed daily or weekly, if you're only interest in recent blogs: http://www.h4labs.com/dev/ios/swift.html?date=0 http://www.h4labs.com/dev/ios/swift.html?week=0 Finally, all the data is on Github: https://github.com/melling/SwiftResources
I couldn't git with git clone git@github.com:apple/swift.git swift but you can use: git clone https://...../apple/... . swift and the same for the remaining libraries.
git clone git@github.com:apple/swift.git swift
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from the hilarious description of Oracle [t=2107], it's worth watching "The Rise and Development of illumos" [1] as it discusses some consequences of signing away copyright on your contributions to an open source project. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc
Can you or someone summarize the salient points, for someone who doesn't have time to watch an hour-long video?
Then, shortly after Sun acquisition, Oracle closed the Solaris code and got away with all contributors' copyrights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"learning/mastering both Go and Swift is the best decision you can make" is a very bold claim. In my area we use Go for some systems but found it scales badly from an engineering point of view to larger more complicated systems, compared to languages like Java and Scala. The JVM has much more mature tooling and libraries too. For mobile applications it will be a while until Swift is stable on Android, so some of the…
In what way does Go scale badly from an engineering point of view?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What it means from a legal standpoint is that Apple is bound by the same terms as everybody else. 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, neuter…
It's so they can re-license in the future. There are some projects with so many authors that it is impossible to re-license because you need sign-off by every single person, even if it makes sense to re-license.
Interesting that they rewrote the Foundation library in Swift for the open-source release rather than open-sourcing the ObjC one and bringing along the ObjC runtime. I wonder if this means they still believe the ObjC runtime and Foundation library are still worth keeping proprietary, or just that this is a step toward phasing out ObjC.
Github repo is live now. https://github.com/apple/swift First ever commit found here https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/afc81c1855bf711315b8e5...
Interesting that they started with git, instead of even a very small section of working code first
What kind of trolling is that ? >I think we should use GPL v3 instead. https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/17
In all seriousness, I'm not sure they could switch it to GPLv3. I think that Apple's firmware signing might run afoul of the anti-tivoization clause and prevent them from shipping Swift on Macs. IANAL