101–110 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C++ would be absolutely terrible for social media applications. There, the barrier isn't usually the speed but correctness and maintenance overhead.
Is Objective C really that much better? If you have decent APIs/libraries, C++ would be just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C++ would be absolutely terrible for social media applications. There, the barrier isn't usually the speed but correctness and maintenance overhead.
Is Objective C really that much better? If you have decent APIs/libraries, C++ would be just fine.
Chris demonstrated Swift and Playgrounds at WWDC 2014: "I can build anything with Swift... from a social media application, all the way up to a high-performance, 3D game using Metal." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKMAV6owYh4#t=6436 He wrote this chapter (entitled LLVM ) in the book, "The Architecture of Open Source Applications": http://aosabook.org/en/llvm.html * * * On the general topic, I wrote this [1] a littl…
Which languages that can produce a high performance 3D game wouldn't be able to also produce a social media application?
What they mean is that the language works at high enough abstraction and feels appropriate for writing both kinds of apps.
I wouldn't want to do a social media app with Fortran, even if it's perfectly possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C++ would be absolutely terrible for social media applications. There, the barrier isn't usually the speed but correctness and maintenance overhead.
Is Objective C really that much better? If you have decent APIs/libraries, C++ would be just fine.
Great to see the credit to Bret Victor and Chris Granger's Light Table. Apple's resources can really help move forward these new ideas of what an IDE can be. If Swift is successful, a whole generation of young developers will use and improve on these ideas. Very exciting to see what happens.
Why do Bret V and Chris G get all the credit for something invented in the 90s? E.g. Steering programs with time travel ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.... ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only really innovative parts of Go are its concurrency support, which Swift seems to be completely lacking. Worth noting that one of the greatest problems in software development is concurrency support and its ease of use/robustness. It is a critical and growing issue. In contrast, having or not having generics, optionals (in C# these are nullable types), algebraic data types (which in Go is interface, albiet min…
> 99% of the articles about the profound importance of generics are people building nothing of interest for anyone, and it is exactly that vaguery of design that makes generics seem so important. I think it's quite a stretch to say that people who have written articles about generics are almost never building anything of importance. The browser you used to post this comment makes extensive use of generics via C++ tem…
I said 99%. The vast majority of language observations online are language tourists, and the observations are seldom practical or rational, but instead are of the "in kicking the tires and making nothing in practical, here are my thoughts".
Those sorts of posts dominate.
Generics have a place, but their importance is...overstated. Though I would quite broadly disagree with the notion that auto_ptr -- a shim on C++ -- justifies the notion of generics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do Bret V and Chris G get all the credit for something invented in the 90s? E.g. Steering programs with time travel ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.... ).
Because they made some impressive demos to reintroduce the concepts at a time when the audience is ready for them.
It is nice that he mentioned Light Table. I would not be surprised if Swift ends up really benefitting Clojure adoption indirectly. I think one of the big hangups for newcomers is that, if you don't have experience with a Lisp, it's often difficult to understand the benefits of interactive development. If a large amount of new programmers become exposed to it, they'll be more open to other options that provide simila…
The only thing that makes me sad is that because of their focus on secrecy, they're doomed to relearn all that we learned along the way. Having played with the swift playground stuff, just an hour long conversation could've made a big difference. Such is the way of Apple though.
That's wrong, condescending and misses the point. Wrong because the developers were not cut off from learning what was learned by others. Condescending in the way it implies that there's a royal "we" of people that should be consulted whenever any programming language is conceived. And it misses the point because some types of learning are learned better by making the mistake yourself rather than accepting the wisdom of authorities.
Anyway, I don't see how Swift's life cycle is any different from other most other languages, except that its inevitable celebrity has been tempered by its parents' protectiveness. The number of people expressing interest in nurturing a language in its formative stages grows in proportion to its viability. Swift went from experiment to viable as soon as it got chosen as the path forward from ObjC.
> just an hour long conversation could've made a big difference
Apple has huge numbers of programmers on staff, including many compiler hackers, many kernel hackers, many with practical experience building and maintaining APIs and developer tools. They employ literally thousands of programmers who will be end users of Swift. To suggest that your opinion is more valid than theirs is hubris.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they made some impressive demos to reintroduce the concepts at a time when the audience is ready for them.
Fine, but if this guy was just inspired by and knew about LightTable and Bret's demos, he is missing a lot of good ideas and experiences that have been gathered over the last 30 years in doing similar things. They are destined to relearn the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to be rude, but if you've tried and actually FAILED to learn Objective-C multiple times, then you will have a much bigger problem with actually learning the Cocoa framework yourself. Objective-C does have a non-standard syntax, but its barrier of entry for actual learning is purely psychological and not technical.
Maybe the mistake could lie in starting with Objective C without first learning C? I'm thinking that a reasonably solid C foundation helps a lot in understanding why and how Obj-C works.
I have subsequently leveraged that ObjC experience to become somewhat proficient in plain C, a skill I appreciate today and something I might never have learned otherwise.