Ah, that's too bad. Does that mean their own programming language, Jakt, is back on the table?
Jfc why do they not just use rust? Is it the c++ addiction dominating?
Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
191–200 of 332 posts
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#192Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
But wasn’t Rust designed specifically for being a language for developing a rendering engine / web browser?
> Rust designed specifically for being a language for developing a rendering engine Rust was born at Mozilla, sort of. It was created by a Mozilla employee. The first "real" project to put it into action was Servo of which parts were adopted into Firefox. While Rust may not have been developed "specifically" to create a browser, it is a fair comment. That said, Ladybird was started as part of the SerenityOS project.…
I stand corrected, I was always under the impression that Rust was created specifically for Servo; TIL.
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1822236888188498031 https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1822239138038382684 "In the end it came down to Swift vs Rust, and Swift is strictly better in OO support and C++ interop."
> In the end it came down to Swift vs Rust, and Swift is strictly better in OO support and C++ interop Why not D?
Why not rust? It's popilar, in wide adoption, with wide support, without the baggage of C++. What'e the downside?
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can, but then you don't get any of what OOP actually offers. Message passing isn't the same thing as dynamic dispatch. OOP is a very different paradigm.
I think you are both unknowingly talking past each other: my understanding is that Smalltalk-style "object-oriented programming" ("everything is a message!") is quite distinct from C++/C#/Java/Rust "object-oriented programming" ("my structs have methods!")
[deleted]
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started using it around 2018. After being reasonably conversant in Objective-C, I fully adopted Swift for a new iOS app and thought it was a big improvement. But there's a lot of hokey, amateurish stuff in there... with more added all the time. Let's start with the arbitrary "structs are passed by value, classes by reference." And along with that: "Prefer structs over classes." But then: "Have one source of truth."…
> But there's a lot of hokey, amateurish stuff in there... with more added all the time. Let's start with the arbitrary "structs are passed by value, classes by reference." And along with that: "Prefer structs over classes." This is the same way that C# works and C and C++ why is this a surprise?
Neither C++ nor C pass classes by reference by default (what even is a C "class" other than a struct?).
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll still need a C compiler...
I never heard of hardware without one
Avoiding interacting with LLVM as a user doesn't mean you've created something equivalent to LLVM.
And if the C compiler you use is clang then you're still literally making use of LLVM.
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But there's a lot of hokey, amateurish stuff in there... with more added all the time. Let's start with the arbitrary "structs are passed by value, classes by reference." And along with that: "Prefer structs over classes." This is the same way that C# works and C and C++ why is this a surprise?
Neither C++ nor C pass classes by reference by default (what even is a C "class" other than a struct?).
You are correct - it’s been ages since I’ve done C. The distinction is in C#.
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next was more or less an Apple spinoff, that was later acquired by Apple. Objective-C was created because using standards is contrary to the company culture. And with Swift they are painting themselves into a corner.
> Objective-C was created because using standards is contrary to the company culture. What language would you have suggested for that mission and that era? Self or Smalltalk and give up on performance on 25-MHz-class processors? C or Pascal and give up an excellent object system with dynamic dispatch?
C.
Re: Closing this as we are no longer pursuing Swift adoption
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the end it came down to Swift vs Rust, and Swift is strictly better in OO support and C++ interop Why not D?
Why not rust? It's popilar, in wide adoption, with wide support, without the baggage of C++. What'e the downside?
It is not backward compatible, the library system is immature, and there is no variety of different compilers for the language.