On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 07:40:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2015-11-25 17:40, Joakim wrote:
I don't see Apple doing all that stuff nowadays. This move to
open-source Swift and port it to linux seems driven by the
llvm devs, I
doubt the company really cares. Apple open-sourced their
ARM64 backend
for llvm last year, despite it being better than the
incomplete OSS
backend being worked on in llvm and providing a competitive
advantage
for their 64-bit ARM devices, so that I can now use it for
Android too.
Of course, there are a _lot_ less Android/Aarch64 devices than
iOS.
But I also doubt that they will try very hard. The ARM64
backend, as you mentioned, was available and in use by Apple
long before it was pushed upstream. Same thing with many other
features in Clang and LLVM. Take null-ability and Objective-C
generics. Apple had an implementation ready and adopt their
whole (most of?) SDK to use these features before they were
pushed upstream.
Right, my point was that it was all open-sourced and pushed
upstream eventually.
Also, take a look at the Windows support as an example, which
was poorly supported by Clang/LLVM. I don't think Apple has
tried a tiny bit at all to improve the Clang/LLVM support for
Windows.
Why should they, if they're not using it? It's a community
project, anybody can contribute, and it appears that Microsoft is
now doing so.
I'm guessing the only reason why they will release a Linux port
is because OS X and Linux are fairly similar, making this
small(er) effort.
Yes, it seems driven by the llvm devs, but who knows, maybe they
run iCloud on linux? ;)
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 10:17:10 UTC, Thiez wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 06:14:47 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't consider Java and C# real competitors to Swift or D,
as they're much older and won't attract the same users.
Certainly not Java, with how verbose it is, haven't looked at
C# too much. But for those with legacy codebases, those moves
towards AoT compilation will certainly help keep those
languages relevant, so good for them.
Much older? c# is only one year older than D. One might argue
that D1 doesn't count, but c# has also received various
improvements over the years, and is currently at version 6.
I looked that up after I wrote it, as that's what I thought and
figured someone might call me on it. You're right that C# and D
were started around the same time, but C# hit 1.0 5 years before
D did and was publicized a lot more, so it seemed older to me.
