Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Swift Programming Language

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 970 posts

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#541

Post by waterfowl »

msoad wrote: post #279
kcorbitt wrote: post #146

So it looks like the language isn't open source and won't target non-Apple runtimes? I'm not trying to troll, I just think that it's a pity that Apple tends to limit the ecosystem and applications of its otherwise-great languages. Building against LLVM ought to make it fairly trivial to make this cross-platform.

You can see first chapter of the book here http://imgur.com/a/AuzGw I've uploaded it just now

thanks for this. I clicked their link(on my less than a year old ~$2000 MBP) and it opened iBooks and sat there with a loading icon for minutes. My first and last experience opening iBooks.

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#542

Post by jakejake »

domluna wrote: post #521

It looks pretty nice, I hope they didn't forget about concurrency and parallelism. I don't see anything talking about this in the iBook.

They link over to this site from the Apple page about Swift http://swift-lang.org/ - I couldn't tell if they are the same thing or if Apple Swift is just based off of this..?

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#543

Post by bendyorke »

kjjw wrote: post #289

"The company says that Swift apps are significantly faster than Objective-C apps, outperforming them by over 93x." With a graph showing ObjC at 127x faster than Python, Swift 220x faster than Python. Thus the conclusion is 220 - 127, Swift is 93x faster than ObjC. Someone needs to resit their GCSEs.

"outperforming them by over 93x" is technically different than "93x faster"... Although I agree it is a cheap way to put it :)

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#546

Post by tptacek »

georgewfraser wrote: post #523

You appear to be advocating a new: [ ] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [X] procedural [X] stack-based [ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed [ ] pure [X] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly [ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. You appear…

In addition to being a space-hogging recapitulation of an old, boring Usenet joke, a lot of your checks are wrong; some of them are because the Usenet joke is lame, but some of them are just you missing things, like the fact that Swift interacts directly with C/ObjC, uses the same IDE as Cocoa developers already use, &c.

This lame Usenet joke was a way of punching down at people joining language newsgroups trying to get people to pay attention to their half-baked language ideas. This, on the other hand, is a language that was introduced on stage at WWDC by Chris Lattner. You can see how especially clumsy the joke is by the fact that you checked off a reason Swift "wasn't going to fly". Obviously, it's going to "fly" just fine on the Mac and in iOS.

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#547

Post by kibwen »

zenojevski wrote: post #492
Udo wrote: post #2

As someone who always disliked Objective C, I think Swift looks very promising. I'll check it out right away :) Software-wise, I feel these current WWDC announcements are the most exciting in years. Looking at the Swift docs right now, I can see many interesting inspirations at work: there's some Lua/Go in there (multiple return values), some Ruby (closure passed as the last argument to a function can appear immediat…

From a user's point of view, it's basically straight out of the Rust book, all the gravy with also relaxed ownership and syntax. It has it all [1]: static typing, type inference, explicit mutability, closures, pattern matching, optionals (with own syntax! also "any"), generics, interfaces, weak ownership, tuples, plus other nifty things like shorthand syntax, final and explicit override... It screams "modern!", has a…

Indeed, I'm not sure what Swift's concurrency story is yet. Other than that it's encouragingly similar to Rust (we're evolving in the right direction!), but not quite as low-level.

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#548

Post by Freaky »

sigzero wrote: post #429
Freaky wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> language website: http://swift-lang.org/ Nope, completely different. Really scummy of Apple to just nick the name of an existing language for their new one, it's been five minutes and people are already confused.

You mean like Google did for Go? Meh

Just like that.

Re: The Swift Programming Language

#549

Post by kibwen »

JamesSwift wrote: post #389
fra wrote: post #319

A lot of the syntax is incredibly similar to rust.

I've been looking into Rust recently, so I wasn't sure if it was just the freshness in my mind or what. Glad to see I wasn't imagining things.

The syntax is so similar that I'm quite curious to know whether the Swift developers have been watching us from afar. :) That said, it could just as easily be convergent evolution... which would be quite an impressive validation of our syntax decisions.
Post reply on HN