| ▲ | killingtime74 12 hours ago |
| Even if it's the same (faster horse?) I would rather use Rust for the fact it's development is not tied to a big tech company which could abandon it if they liked. Yes it could continue on as a fork but it's development velocity would suffer. |
|
| ▲ | threatofrain 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If we're going to be concerned about any language languishing due to a lack of support... like, I don't think people are going to put "Apple dropping support" as anywhere near their shortlist. Rust has a higher risk of losing support. |
| |
| ▲ | kibwen 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Apple was the primary and only major sponsor of Objective-C, used it as the core foundation of their entire platform, and dropped it like a stone with little warning or ceremony. Yes, being tied so closely to Apple is an existential risk for Swift. One need only look at the quality and trajectory of MacOS to see that Apple isn't a software company, let alone a company that cares about developer experience (Xcode, anyone?). As far as modern Apple is concerned, the primary benefit of Swift is that it produces a tiny bit extra lock-in for iOS apps, by making cross-platform development more difficult. | | |
| ▲ | KlayLay 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People still write applications in Objective-C (e.g., see Transmission [1]), and the language is still maintained to support the latest OS. If anything, Apple being the largest sponsor of Objective-C would suggest that you get greater vendor lock-in out of it than Swift, since you can at least use the latter outside of Apple platforms (e.g., on a server). [1]: https://github.com/transmission/transmission | | | |
| ▲ | CharlesW 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Objective-C is as dead because of Swift as C is because of Rust, which is to say, "not very". Objective-C remains a first-class iOS development language, and there's no sign of that changing for at least another decade. | |
| ▲ | st3fan 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "and dropped it like a stone with little warning or ceremony" What?! This is complete nonsense. Swift was introduced 11 (!) years ago and it was clear from day one that it was going to be the future. Every single year since the introduction there were clear messages and hints in documentation and WWDC that Swift is in and Objective-C will _eventually_ be out. Little warning? Maybe if you kept your eyes closed the past 11 years. And do not forget that today you can still write apps in Objective-C. | | |
| ▲ | kibwen 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whether or not Apple still has legacy pieces in Objective-C or still allows you to write apps in it is not the issue. The point here is that Apple shadow-dropped Swift and shifted essentially all of its development priority away from Objective-C in a matter of months. | | |
| ▲ | st3fan 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think that is a pretty inaccurate description of what happened the past 11 years. |
|
| |
| ▲ | j3th9n 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Such bullshit, macOS is the best OS for power users. | | |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Rust of all languages, now that it's been majorly adopted by many companies big and small, has a higher risk of losing support over a language developed exclusively by one corporation? I sincerely doubt that. |
|
|
| ▲ | Hamuko 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A lot of Apple's software is written in Swift now. It's probably not in their interest to abandon the language. |
| |
| ▲ | HaloZero 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean they did switch from objective c. At some point they might switch again if it makes sense. | | |
| ▲ | hokumguru 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, after some almost 40 years. If 40 years from now, hell, even 20, Apple abandoned the language I’m not sure I care about the risk. And that’s not to say they don’t support objective-c still. It just hasn’t been actively developed with new features. | |
| ▲ | cube00 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Especially if the promise of coding agents porting between languages is even partially realised it could make it very easy for them to switch. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rvz 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I would rather use Rust for the fact it's development is not tied to a big tech company which could abandon it if they liked. Go's development is tied to Google Inc. and is widely used at Google. Same with Microsoft's C# with .NET and Swift isn't very different to this as long as it is open source. So this really is a moot point. |
| |
| ▲ | thayne 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have similar concerns about c# as I do about swift. I'm less concerned about go, because unlike swift and c# it was designed from the beginning to be cross-platform and if anything Linux is the best supported OS. But barely so. Also, if Google were to discontinue support, or change the license, or do something else disruptive, I have more faith that the ecosystem would create a fork to continue the language. FWIW, my biggest concern isn't that the language would be completely abandoned, it is that the company would diminish or drop support for tooling on OSes and editors and IDEs that compete with the company's products (Mac OS and Xcode for apple, Windows and Visual Studio for MS). | | |
| ▲ | bonesss 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Microsoft’s market position is reliant on Linux and access to Linux development to keep Azure competitive. Cross-platform capabilities on the .Net VM are critical to compete with the JVM and associated databases. C# has been windows-first for a while, but the core cross-platform capabilities are not going to disappear, the tooling is all CLI based/capable now, the entanglements tend to be platform and service based. That said, F# was years ahead of C# in features C# is still chasing, and is driven mostly by the open source community. That community is more in academic and finance areas where Linux-first is common. The language is standardized and plugged into VM improvements over time. Frankly, I see the lesser degree of entanglement with MS corporate interests as a boon for the language and its ecosystems long-term utility. |
| |
| ▲ | sealeck 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Go has a critical mass that Swift clearly doesn't (i.e. there are many, many companies who have net profits of >$1bn and write most of their server software in Go). Additionally Google isn't selling Go as a product in the same way as Apple does Swift (and where Google does publish public Go APIs it also tends to use them in the same way as their users do, so the interests are more aligned)... | | |
| ▲ | behnamoh 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Additionally Google isn't selling Go as a product in the same way as Apple does Swift Hmm, Apple isn't selling Swift as a product either; it's literally what they needed for their own platform, much like how GOOG needed Go for their server works. | | |
| ▲ | sealeck 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Apple is selling Swift as a product - it is their preferred interface for constructing iOS applications! |
|
| |
| ▲ | kibwen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Objective-C had its own open source source implementations, along with a better cross-platform story than Swift has ever had, and yet Apple's abandonment still managed to reduce it to irrelevance. | |
| ▲ | cube00 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | IMHO your case for a moot point would be stronger if you also mentioned which company you feel is tied to Rust in the same way as the other languages you've mentioned. |
|
|
| ▲ | nomel 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| First sentence of the wiki page [1]: > Swift is a high-level general-purpose, multi-paradigm, compiled programming language created by Chris Lattner in 2010 for Apple Inc. and maintained by the open-source community. As the article repeats, it is not Apple specific. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_(programming_language) |
| |
| ▲ | piyuv 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Swift being maintained by the open source community is an illusion. The community was very against function builders. Apple went ahead and did it anyway because they needed it for SwiftUI. The open source community just provides discussion, and Apple gets its way either way. | | |
| ▲ | vor_ 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The community was very against function builders. Scanning the multiple review threads, that doesn't appear to be the case. According to the acceptance post, the community was overall positive about the feature but expressed concerns over the attribute naming, which was renamed in response. | | |
| |
| ▲ | dochtman 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd bet a supermajority of Swift commits comes from Apple developers. Pretty sure the rust-lang/rust commit authors would be much less centralized. | |
| ▲ | WD-42 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yup just like google doesn’t actually control chromium right | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know Swift is technically not Apple specific, but it says right there in your quote that it was created for Apple and Apple is the giant weight behind it. I doubt Apple is in danger of dropping Swift, but if they did it would create a devastating vacuum in the Swift ecosystem. | |
| ▲ | afavour 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But the fact remains that if Apple abandoned Swift tomorrow the language would almost certainly wither and die. | |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's about as maintained by the "open source community" as Android is lol |
|