I don’t know, I’ve never had those problems and my codebases reach 600k+ LOC. I’ve certainly had plenty of errors to deal with Cocoapods and obsolete frameworks though, though those projects also tend to use pretty much every third-party lib that gets attention on Medium.

Modularizing an Xcode project with local Swift packages has been the best productivity gain in my experience. Doing something similar with Cocoapods is a headache.

▲

gregoriol 7 days ago | parent [-]

Local Swift packages are indeed improving the experience a little bit: better version management, less xcode crashes, slightly more explicit errors, but still highly troublesome. It really feels like Apple's teams are not using any of SwiftPM themselves.

▲

ninkendo 7 days ago | parent [-]

> It really feels like Apple's teams are not using any of SwiftPM themselves.

They probably never will, at least not for anything that ships with the OS. For Apple, binary size is very important, and it’s essential that they have only one of every library (“project”) installed on the device, and that they use dynamic linking everywhere.

SwiftPM uses static linking to the core, and if Apple were to use it, binary sizes would balloon (not to mention there would be potentially mutually incompatible versions of things.) You could fix this by ignoring version specs in the package file and building just one of every project/framework, and changing it to use dynamic linking everywhere… but at some point you’re just contorting swiftpm to become a big mono-build system, which only Apple would really be using as such.

	▲	6 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]