Back when I was working with Swift, I always thought Swift Package Index was made by Apple
Swift Package Index joins Apple
61–70 of 85 posts
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
But here Apple seems like they avoided that by buying the project instead of creating their own clone. Doesn't that make it nothing lime the Sherlock/Watson situation?
Indeed, it seems like the honorable approach.
Cloning features and UI in your own product is not dishonorable. Outcompeting someone who didn’t bake in a moat isn’t doing anything wrong, or Burger King and Wendy’s shouldn’t exist.
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about the laws where you're at, but to me, this sounds like something they should have to accommodate you on.
Don’t jurisdictions generally offer ID cards for non-drivers that are functionally equivalent for ID purposes, you just can’t drive?
[deleted]
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#64Not optimistic here. While I'm glad the SPI guys are getting paid (that is, a full time job), Apple is pretty bad at open source and developer services both, and they explicitly call out developer identity as a future direction, which doesn't fill me with hope.
I tried to get a personal developer account (I'm already a developer through an organisation). The app required a Driver's license as the only accepted ID. I don't drive because I'm blind. They did a screen share and talked me through applying on the web site. It failed. They never gave a reason and ignored me when I asked for one. They just said "Hello Robert, Thank you for your patience while I awaited a response f…
My driver's license is in a form factor Apple cannot scan. A few months ago, I tried to get it scanned four times (with the UI telling me various versions of "your ID is too blurry" / "there was a technical issue") before Apple just blocked me from applying for the developer program.
Their support gave me the exact same template: "After reviewing your account details, it looks like we can’t verify your identity with the Apple Developer app or provide further assistance with the Apple Account for Apple developer programs."
I was only unblocked recently (surprisingly -- I thought I was banned forever), and so I decided to try applying with passport instead. That got further, as instead of saying my ID image was blurry, it said "ID Verification Rejected".
I am in contact with developer support right now and they told me that one of my devices or phone numbers was registered with another developer account, but they haven't told me which one (only to "remove phone numbers and devices that you don’t own" -- which isn't applicable as I own all of them).
They're taking 4+ days to reply each time though, which is super frustrating.
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, it seems like the honorable approach.
Cloning features and UI in your own product is not dishonorable. Outcompeting someone who didn’t bake in a moat isn’t doing anything wrong, or Burger King and Wendy’s shouldn’t exist.
Well at least they didn't have their product managers reach out to "start a conversation" like Google and Microsoft's who then blatantly rip off the product later.
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is the feature I need available for this Linux device? If it’s in Foundation, yes. Swift 6 on Apple OSes now (since a while ago actually) uses the same open-source foundation as Linux. If it’s a proprietary framework (e.g. TabularData), no. It’s simple. For the rest, almost all Swift packages developed by Apple are fully compatible with Linux, and the documentation of said packages is usually explicit wrt. platform…
What a mess. A standard library and then apparently on top of that a Core and that's where they put a Foundation, you can imagine Apple architects arguing with the elevator contractors, "No, no, the Ground floor of our building is below our Foundation, it's very straight forward..." But although that's enough for me to want no part of it, that's not what I was gesturing at. When we dig under the "Foundation" to look…
Foundation is on top of Core Foundation, not "Core". Core Foundation is a C++ version of certain Foundation primitives for operating system services that can't depend on the Objective-C runtime.
The Swift standard library would be built on top of that, not the other way around.
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about the laws where you're at, but to me, this sounds like something they should have to accommodate you on.
Don’t jurisdictions generally offer ID cards for non-drivers that are functionally equivalent for ID purposes, you just can’t drive?
Yes, of course, it seems that type of ID was specifically rejected in the story above. Only drivers allowed to sign up. Non-drivers rejected because they don’t drive.
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find your choice of examples (dotnet and go) baffling to me. Both enjoyed a very long life (8-10 years) past “1.0” before getting a standard package manager. The other examples, Java, python and JS are significantly older than Go (and even dotnet). Python and JS also had a significantly different intended use (scripting) than where they ended. Expectations of a language and its ecosystem changed. The compiler, link…
All of them pre-exist Swift, so I think it's perfectly fair to compare. Swift wasn't made in a vacuum.
Well not Go's package manager, right? Go modules came out 2019, Swift 2015?
I wasn't arguing against Swift needing a default package manager, I agree with that. Just the examples you picked to compare with are odd in context. You could compare Swift to its contemporaries like Rust or Zig and come to the same conclusion.
Re: Swift Package Index joins Apple
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://thehustle.co/sherlocking-explained
https://www.karelia.com/blog/the-long-story-behind-karel.htm... > An hour later, Steve Jobs called me. > "Here's how I see it," Jobs said — I'm loosely paraphrasing. > "You know those handcars, the little machines that people stand on and pump to move along on the train tracks? That's Karelia. Apple is the steam train that owns the tracks." > So basically the message was: get out of the way, kid; this is our market.…
> Hope folks will always keep that in mind as they develop software for proprietary platforms they don't own.
You're right of course and "The Other Road Ahead" was very prescient, but I think the desktop vs web-app divide is marginal nowadays, excepting one huge difference: desktop apps can offer a guarantee of privacy which browser based apps cannot.
Note that a guarantee is just that, Apple offer privacy guarantees, but there is is of course no such thing as absolute privacy or security.
It's perfectly possible to write desktop apps that are thin clients for web apps, so there's no real divide except where the code executes: in the browser sandbox, or in the OS sandbox.
The current issue with desktop apps is mainly UI framework related. The browser based programming model has had so many resources thrown at it that somehow JavaScript and a bunch of divs is probably the best UI framework there is, and it pains me to say that.