Live data from Hacker News

Swift is Open Source

swift.org

411–420 of 458 posts

Re: Swift is Open Source

#411

I find the number of typo PRs to be amusing. Makes me wonder if there's a mass effort to slog through commented code just to jump into the contributor list. Correct spelling is certainly good, but the interesting phenomenon is getting a PR merged in a high-profile project - however slight the change - as a badge of cool. https://github.com/apple/swift/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Ap...

Definitely to get the little achievement, me included. I wouldn't put it on my resume but I guess it is a fun little thing to have.

Re: Swift is Open Source

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better alternative is Groovy: https://jaxenter.com/groovy-is-the-swift-alternative-for-and...

Better is very subjective. They both solve a lot of the same problems, but lots of people will go for Kotlin just for static typing.

Groovy 2.0 added static typing: http://www.groovy-lang.org/releasenotes/groovy-2.0.html

Re: Swift is Open Source

#413
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same guy who wasn't offered a job at Google because he didn't do well in the interview (or was it code in the interview?)

Google doesn't provide feedback on why they reject you. For example, you could be the world's foremost expert on Erlang. But the department interviewing you needs a C++ programmer. You'd never know that was the reason. You'd just be notified that you weren't called back for another interview and asked to please check back for more positions in a few months.

I was just rejected by Google. They will give feedback -- in my case, the recruiter said that they were worried I didn't seem to care whether my code would actually work as written.

They recruited me through the code jam, but hey.

Re: Swift is Open Source

#414
Been learning Elixir for the past few months and it's been a fun experience learning a functional language and OTP.

This might just be the thing to cross the "native" on my language learning checklist.

Re: Swift is Open Source

#415
post #125

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.

[deleted]

Re: Swift is Open Source

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This raises some interesting legal questions. If I start a git repo and only add a license in the Nth commit, does that license apply retroactively to a checkout of the first N-1 commits? What if I start out with one license but I change it in the Nth commit? If someone clones the git repo with the Nth commit in it and then checks out an earlier commit, which license applies? (For simplicity, assume I am the only aut…

Whatever you write is copyright under the creator or the employer of the creator. What license you put past that is whatever you want, whenever you want.

[deleted]

Re: Swift is Open Source

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can retroactively make a license more open, but you cannot retroactively make it more closed.

If I am the sole owner of a work, I can change the license of newly distributed copies from any previous license to any new license that I want to, even if the new license is more restrictive. The new license doesn't retroactively apply to copies that were distributed under the old license, only new copies distributed under the new license. However, my original question still stands. If I hack privately on a git repo…

[deleted]

Re: Swift is Open Source

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can retroactively make a license more open, but you cannot retroactively make it more closed.

If I am the sole owner of a work, I can change the license of newly distributed copies from any previous license to any new license that I want to, even if the new license is more restrictive. The new license doesn't retroactively apply to copies that were distributed under the old license, only new copies distributed under the new license. However, my original question still stands. If I hack privately on a git repo…

I'm a law student but not an expert, and I haven't researched the caselaw (yet?). Rcthompson, I apologize for taking this opportunity to go way beyond your question (see below). [This also reflects my assumption that you are coding within the US. And also this is not legal advice, merely hypothetical musing.]

Whatever you write, if copyrightable, automatically achieves copyright protection when fixed in tangible form - and you automatically obtain authorship rights. That gives you the right to grant licenses for any of the rights you've obtained (including to produce derivative works). Swift's license (https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt) allows you to modify the license of your additions (your right under federal law anyway), but not the sections you didn't author.

I mean... I can see it cutting both ways. On its face, it's a very fair system - you can use whatever you want but only own whatever you wrote. What becomes problematic is if companies (realistically) with wide distribution nets grab open-source code, modify it slightly, alter the license of the bundle and resell it. I know that's not a new phenomenon.

Another concern I see is if libraries or maybe files or something have proprietary names, then in theory you'd require an express license from the proprietor (in this case basically Apple).

I was concerned I didn't understand the basic question that prompted my response, which was from rcthompson, but he reframed it: commits 1 to n-1 have sort of Schrodinger's Cat licenses. They have copyright protection (regardless of any of this). And that grants you the right to control licensing of those rights (reproduction, public display, derivative works, etc.). But I don't see why you couldn't retroactively apply whatever you want. The Swift license applies itself, if you don't specify otherwise, upon submission of your work to the licensor (I guess per notice requirements). Until then it's unclear. However, federal copyright protections and state common and statutory laws would also apply (and would basically grant you the right to control licensing).

Re: Swift is Open Source

#419

Testing the binaries on ubuntu decompressed to to $HOME/swift and trying to execute swift: Welcome to Swift version 2.2-dev (LLVM 46be9ff861, Clang 4deb154edc, Swift 778f82939c). Type :help for assistance. 1> help opening import file for module 'SwiftShims': No such file or directory 1> I could not find any mention to environment variables that could be used to override default locations, like SWIFT_LIBRARY_PATH or s…

It seems to want to find a `SwiftShims.swiftmodule`, fails, prints the error message and then loads the module from an alternate path but it is already too late.

https://gist.github.com/solidsnack/d902a761877b0f797835

Re: Swift is Open Source

#420
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm much more thrilled about Swift the about Go. Sure Go has a head start in server-side department, but from what I know of Swift I'd much rather write webapps in it then in Go. Many webapps have a kind of "highlevelness" to them, and Swift nicely addresses that with it's features. Go is somehow on a kind of feature diet that's just not my cup of tea. And in terms of low-high-level-ness it I put it somewhere in betw…

Swift gives you nice syntax and Go provides you good abstraction for concurrency(channel and goroutines).

I understand it more like: Go force one concurrency model on me (like Node.js or Erlang), and Swift is a general purpose language that --over time-- will allow me to use any kind of concurrency model (like C/C++/Haskell/etc.).

Oh, and syntax-wise I like both of 'm. I was not referring to syntax much, mostly to capabilities.

Post reply on HN