C#'s implementation was closed source and tied to a totally novel (at the time) API suite in .NET.
C#'s implementation was closed source and tied to a totally novel (at the time) API suite in .NET. Swift has the advantage that it's tied to already known APIs, and that it can call into C/ObjC code, and they can call into Swift. At this stage it's probably too early to say whether Apple will or will not open source their Swift implementation. Again, pointing to a successful proprietary language, C# didn't have an open implementation until Mono came along in 2004. And that project had to develop a lot more infrastructure. We just (I hate that word, but in this case it's not totally wrong) need a compiler front-end for Swift. Under the hood it's using the same LLVM workflow that clang uses. So keeping the language closed-source won't last for long anyways. EDIT: C# could call into C++ from the start, and I believe the reverse was also true. So platform-wise, MS matches the Swift<->ObjC/C bridge as well. I forgot about that detail.
Posted by Jtsummers on Jun 5, 2014, 12:43 PM
Tags
Related issues
- A pet peeve of mine is websites thinking oh you prefer dark mode so let’s make the background pure black.
- I wish there was a link to the repo included on the website.
- > but I wish there was a middle ground between it and VK There's WebGPU (probably the best option for teaching), D3D11 and Metal.
- Decent article.
- I understand and previously agreed with Mozilla's hard line privacy and security stance.
- ☂️ Reinforcement: Add more basic components to the core framework
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,500 issues0 comments
complaint (Software)
A pet peeve of mine is websites thinking oh you prefer dark mode so let’s make the background pure black.
I wish there was a link to the repo included on the website.
> but I wish there was a middle ground between it and VK There's WebGPU (probably the best option for teaching), D3D11 and Metal.
Decent article.
I understand and previously agreed with Mozilla's hard line privacy and security stance.
☂️ Reinforcement: Add more basic components to the core framework
Adding templating to more notification providers
Code Push / Hot Update / out of band updates
C#'s implementation was closed source and tied to a totally novel (at the time) API suite in .NET.
C#'s implementation was closed source and tied to a totally novel (at the time) API suite in .NET. Swift has the advantage that it's tied to already known APIs, and that it can call into C/ObjC code, and they can call into Swift. At this stage it's probably too early to say whether Apple will or will not open source their Swift implementation. Again, pointing to a successful proprietary language, C# didn't have an open implementation until Mono came along in 2004. And that project had to develop a lot more infrastructure. We just (I hate that word, but in this case it's not totally wrong) need a compiler front-end for Swift. Under the hood it's using the same LLVM workflow that clang uses. So keeping the language closed-source won't last for long anyways. EDIT: C# could call into C++ from the start, and I believe the reverse was also true. So platform-wise, MS matches the Swift<->ObjC/C bridge as well. I forgot about that detail.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.