Amiga.org
Operating System Specific Discussions => Other Operating Systems => Topic started by: bloodline on June 03, 2014, 08:59:57 AM
-
I want some feedback from proper programmers... Is Apple's new Swift programming language really any good?
I've just spent the night reading the developer guide and I can't get over the horrible syntax...
Your thoughts please!! :-(
-
I want some feedback from proper programmers... Is Apple's new Swift programming language really any good?
I've just spent the night reading the developer guide and I can't get over the horrible syntax...
Your thoughts please!! :-(
Not looked at it yet but now you can understand how I feel looking at seeing smalltalk constructs in C...
-
Not looked at it yet but now you can understand how I feel looking at seeing smalltalk constructs in C...
But the smalltak syntax added to C to make obj-c is tiny. Essentially a couple of keywords and a message calling construct. The rest is just lovely lovely C...
Swift is unreadable... I know it's probably just "shock of the new", but I can't understand why they didn't make the language more beautiful to read?
I can spend hours reading over C/C++ and Obj-C without feeling like I want to be sick... Try that with swift, it feels very "clunky". But I don't have a degree in computer science so maybe I'm wrong!?
-edit- I think also, swift feels too separate from the hardware for me. I don't like not knowing what's going on. The nice thing about Obj-C is that there is very little hidden away.
-
Hi Bloodline, et al.
Just had a bit of a thumb through the swift guide.
Here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/swift-programming-language/id881256329
for anyone interested. Free download.
Initial thoughts:
1. Type Safety vs. Type Inference
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Inference makes it easier on the programmer, but also allows subtle bugs to creep in.
Did some work recently in RUBY where this became an issue.
Or maybe I have just spent too long programming in VHDL :)
2. Tuples
Seems like a nice idea for functions to be able to return compound values without the overhead of creating a class definition.
3. Property Observers
Could be handy to trigger a function when a property is changed.
Presumably this will work across threads?
Guide doesn't go into that level of detail.
4. Extensions
"Extend types for which you do not have access to the original source code"
Can you say security hole?
I couldn't see any way of preventing Extensions?
(It wasn't clear to me whether the 'final' attribute blocks this functionality?)
5. Generics
Good. Enough said.
6. Custom Operators
Good. Enough said.
7. No Pointers?
Makes hardware bashing rather difficult.
It may be possible to import modules/functions written in other languages which do though?
The "import (import kind)" isn't very clear on this
Seems to have borrowed a few ideas from other languages, and renamed them for no good reason:
Closures <=> Lambdas (Java,Ruby etc.)
I agree, the Obj-C syntax can be rather quirky.
---
Will have to wait and see the release version before passing final judgement...
Cheers,
Red
-
I suppose I should say something positive...
It's a lot nicer than Python...
It's not Java.
-edit- RedscullDC, I've never used generics so have no idea what they are, or what I would use them for. But the syntax looks really awkward :-/
-
Oh joy, yet another programming language. Does it do anything interesting?
-
It's Objective-Pascal. Did the world really need this? Whatever, I'm never going to do any iOS development anyway.
-
As an unexperianced hobby programmer i really love the playgound.
-
Did the world really need this?
Of course not :lol:
-
I suppose I should say something positive...
It's a lot nicer than Python...
It's not Java.
-edit- RedscullDC, I've never used generics so have no idea what they are, or what I would use them for. But the syntax looks really awkward :-/
I really like Java, what are your reasons for not liking it ? i but I agree Python is horrible :)
generics are pretty useful, does obj-c not have them
-
My Objective C programming was never great, I can get by, but....
I'm interested in giving Swift a go. Apple obviously didn't create the language from scratch, does anyone know the base language Apple used?
-
My Objective C programming was never great, I can get by, but....
I'm interested in giving Swift a go. Apple obviously didn't create the language from scratch, does anyone know the base language Apple used?
Unicorn tear drops mixed with pixie dust then wait 24 hours, Swift is born!
-
I really like Java, what are your reasons for not liking it ?
I freely admit, my dislike of Java is irrational, I'm sure it's a fine language now. I have several friends who earn a living through it... But try developing anything, and it feels like you are trying to code wearing boxing gloves. I don't feel connected to the coding experience.
i but I agree Python is horrible :)
Python feels dated... Compared to C... For me, everything feels dated compared to C (and C derived languages, including Jave).
generics are pretty useful, does obj-c not have them
Hmmm, no... I suppose in Obj-c everything is an object, so you don't worry about types on high level components. :-/
-
My Objective C programming was never great, I can get by, but....
I'm interested in giving Swift a go. Apple obviously didn't create the language from scratch, does anyone know the base language Apple used?
It looks like they did create it from scratch. It's a weird combination of C# paradigms on pascal syntax with all the features of C we couldn't live without, running on the obj-c runtime....
I'm sure I will get used to it... But it is a truly ghastly looking language. Why they didn't just clean up C, I dint know?!
-
From a quick perusal of the ebook the language reminds me of Pascal. But I'm not going to hold that against it. I want to take it for a spin, when will it be available?
-
The problem with Java is that it's a solid language saddled with a horrible library and runtime. They should've gone back to the drawing board when they first realized that they'd made "integer" both a primitive and an object type.
-
Looking into Swift briefly, looks to be similar to Go (aka Golang), actually. Conceptually, anyways.
-
I'll stick to 680x0 assembly language. All this modern hocus pocus.
-
From a quick perusal of the ebook the language reminds me of Pascal. But I'm not going to hold that against it. I want to take it for a spin, when will it be available?
If you have a developer licence you can try it now.
If you don't hold its Pascal like syntax against it, you haven't used Pascal ;-)
-
I have not looked at Swift at all. Or Objective C. I have done some work in C#. The biggest problem I have with these "next big thing" languages and the reason I won't even bother looking at them now is they don't seem to end up being ubiquitous. Swift/Objective-C in reality never seems to be used for anything but Apple platforms, because Apple is pushing it, and nobody else really. C# is used for Microsoft platforms, because Microsoft pushes it, and nobody else really. With their vested interests nobody then seems to be able to agree on a common language going forward that would be available to develop on for any device.
For the dozens of devices I've programmed for over the years, one thing I could count on is C being supported. Likewise, C++ for any platform actively supported in the last 15 years. I wouldn't want to code an app in C# for an MS platform then rewrite it in Swift for an Apple platform, then C++ for some other platform. Why not just use C++ from the start to save the porting headaches/cost? I guess I've lived in an extremely cross-platform development world for decades so to use anything else would feel idiotic. So at this point I have a feeling I'll be coding in pretty much nothing but C/C++ until I'm dead.
Java seems to have been the biggest attempt to get a "modern" language/development available in all sorts of places. But the language is too high level, and there's the whole run-time thing. I don't think I'll be using Java on an SPU any time soon. Which is a big problem I have with all these new languages, they tend to go too high level and leave the low level stuff behind, making it very hard to do. Mmmm managed code, fun!
I'm not even against a new language if it can keep easy access to the low level flexibility of C/C++, but add some new constructs to make higher level things easier, because some of those higher level things in C++ are indeed confusing and dangerous and take a lot of use to master. But any new language should probably be developed and managed by a wider standards/interests committee with many parties, not just one vendor's whims unleashed upon the world - that never seems to be looked upon well by the other parties, even if the language may be the greatest thing ever you may see little buy-in because the other parties didn't feel part of the development process.
-
Now I've had a day or so to ruminate on the subject, I accept that swift offers advantages for application development.
But the biggest turn off is the lack of control I'm used to with Obj-c. I have a clear mental picture of what is happening on my CPU and how my memory structures are arranged. That's a feature of C and its derivatives. With Swift, one is kept away from the hardware. That was the intention and concept behind languages like obj-c in the first place...
I will probably learn to live with it :-(
-
I will probably learn to live with it :-(
For the most part, you really won't have a choice.
-
For the most part, you really won't have a choice.
I do have that fear, but since the runtime is still NeXTStep Obj-C isn't going anywhere soon... And by the time they do decide to cull it, I doubt I'll ether (be alive/ be developing apple apps/care) delete as appropriate :)
-
1. Type Safety vs. Type Inference
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Inference makes it easier on the programmer, but also allows subtle bugs to creep in.
Did some work recently in RUBY where this became an issue.
Or maybe I have just spent too long programming in VHDL :)
I think that you are getting some concepts mixed up. Type inference won't necessarily cause subtle bugs. In Swift (like Go and I guess C#) the types are inferred at compile time, and if there is a type error (e.g. assigning a floating point number to a variable that was inferred to be an integer), the compiler will bail out to tell you. I believe that the problem you are thinking of relates to dynamically typed languages, where the type isn't necessarily known at runtime, such as ruby or python.
Python feels dated... Compared to C... For me, everything feels dated compared to C (and C derived languages, including Jave).
I'm not sure what definition of "dated" you assume here, but it obviously isn't the literal meaning of the word. What exactly make these languages feel dated compared to C? Do they remind you of any pre-C programming languages in particular? IMO Python has plenty of drawbacks that you can validly criticize, but I don't think this is one.
-
Python feels dated because it's such a throwback - an interpreted, dynamically-typed language where whitespace counts as part of the syntax? A language where each version is subtly incompatible, so you may wind up needing several different installs of the runtime on the same computer? It's like a little piece of the '80s and their semi-infinite number of bizarre one-off language variants for one particular brand of home computer somehow bubbled up into the present and accreted elements from newer trends.
It also feels dated because it's taken up Visual Basic's mantle as "the quick-and-easy programming language everybody uses to hack up small utility programs so you inevitably have to go to an entirely different website and download another program in order to run the program you just downloaded" - at least where .NET hasn't filled that role. (I'll say one thing for Python, at least its runtime isn't in the hundreds of megabytes.)
-
An interesting article about programming languages:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/how-can-i-make-sure-that-im-actually-learning-how-to-program/
-
Python feels dated because it's such a throwback - an interpreted, dynamically-typed language where whitespace counts as part of the syntax?
All valid concerns, but I'm not sure how they contribute to your argument that it feels "dated". These perks have their pros and cons, and while the concepts aren't all exactly new, there is nothing fundamentally archaic about any of them. Since we're comparing to C, why not talk about digraphs and trigraphs?
A language where each version is subtly incompatible, so you may wind up needing several different installs of the runtime on the same computer?
Each version? Nope. Compatibility differences potentially exist between minor and major version numbers, but they are all well documented and far from subtle. If anything, I'll argue that the fact that the language is being actively maintained speaks for its "non-datedness", at least in the literal sense of the word. Not to say that the whole deal with python 2/3 isn't an awful mess, but again, it doesn't really contribute to your argument that it feels dated, unless you subscribe to some esoteric idea of what feels dated that doesn't have anything to do with contemporary ideas and expectations or continuity.
It's like a little piece of the '80s and their semi-infinite number of bizarre one-off language variants for one particular brand of home computer somehow bubbled up into the present and accreted elements from newer trends.
I think you'll have to be more specific. You aren't really saying anything substantial about Python or any of the anonymous 80's home computer language variants you are presumably comparing it to.
It also feels dated because it's taken up Visual Basic's mantle as "the quick-and-easy programming language everybody uses to hack up small utility programs so you inevitably have to go to an entirely different website and download another program in order to run the program you just downloaded" - at least where .NET hasn't filled that role.
You are not making a valid point about the language itself. Your criticism is first of all based on the presumption that software is written for its users to be downloaded. From that limited perspective, I may agree with you (although I haven't been using operating systems that didn't come bundled with python 2.7.x for the past few years), but even then I question it as an argument against Python as a language, and most of all, for Python as a "dated" language.
-
Chill, dude. I never said that Python was objectively terrible. I've used it myself, and while it's not my language of choice, I can see why people like it. I said it feels dated, which it does, because there's so many things about it that remind of the weird old days. '80s synth-driven pop-rock feels dated, too, and I don't dislike that either.
-
The Swift syntax is bloody awful. They could have at least kept semi-colons to make it more familiar to C/Obj-C programmers.
For anyone who isn't a registered Apple developer, XCode 6 and Yosemite are up on TPB.
-
Swift Playgroud reminds me of Easy AMOS & AMOS Pro.
-
I couldn't get around using a language where indentation and spacing determined code blocks. No thanks.
And having has to use an interpreted non typed language through work for years I just feel that leaving an interpreter to work out the variable types from their use is just not cricket.
-
The Swift syntax is bloody awful. They could have at least kept semi-colons to make it more familiar to C/Obj-C programmers.
For anyone who isn't a registered Apple developer, XCode 6 and Yosemite are up on TPB.
To be fair you are still allowed to use semicolons as stamement terminators... My biggest gripes are;
The bizzare function definition syntax.
The odd variable/constant type placement (though, they didn't have much choice)
The method calling feels clunky (Obj-C looks weird but is actually rather elegant*)
Due to the unfamiliar nature of the syntax, as someone coming from C, class definitions appear almost random in swift.
My confident, and probably inaccurate, prediction for the future is that Swift will be picked up by beginners and a few hobbyists... But serious developers will stick to Obj-C/C++ since they know it and will almost certainly be working in other C derived languages on other platforms/projects... Swift will then be silently dropped and remembered as an interesting little experiment :)
* I think C++ gets it right as methods are sort of functions in a struct and Obj-C gets it right as methods are executed in response to a message. Both beautiful implementations of their object models!
-
I'm wondering if Swift was developed to make Apps harder to port from iPad/iPhone to other platforms? It's up to the developer what they use of course but new developers that only learn and develop in Swift are locked into Apple's ecosystem right?
-
I'm wondering if Swift was developed to make Apps harder to port from iPad/iPhone to other platforms? It's up to the developer what they use of course but new developers that only learn and develop in Swift are locked into Apple's ecosystem right?
There hasn't been any announcement from Apple as to the open/closed nature of the compiler... But if the language is popular (which I doubt it will be), then the language could be added to the gcc suite if someone was so motivated. One would of course need GNUStep to make any real use of it...
-
I'm wondering if Swift was developed to make Apps harder to port from iPad/iPhone to other platforms? It's up to the developer what they use of course but new developers that only learn and develop in Swift are locked into Apple's ecosystem right?
I read the discussion with interest but didn't reply as I haven't taken the time to look at the language. However, this was my question - is this planned as a cross platform development system? I didn't see that discussed. As such, I had the same thought as SysAdmin.
Had anyone read further on the topic?
-Nyle
-
I read the discussion with interest but didn't reply as I haven't taken the time to look at the language. However, this was my question - is this planned as a cross platform development system? I didn't see that discussed. As such, I had the same thought as SysAdmin.
Had anyone read further on the topic?
-Nyle
Chris Lattner (who designed Swift), says Apple haven't decided yet, also the language is still considered beta as the final compiler hasn't been released yet...
-
If that is their aim, it would be a little baffling. Microsoft and Windows RT have just given everybody a terrific object lesson in what happens when you try to induce migration to a locked-down platform from an open one - either you leave in legacy compatibility because you can't afford not to have it (as Windows 8 does,) in which case everybody goes "well, that's all right for you, then, have fun with that new thing, we'll just be over here working on the platform we're comfortable and familiar with and aren't limited by," or they cut legacy support in hopes of forcing developers to migrate (as Windows RT does,) in which case everybody goes "...yeah, maybe we'll just not bother supporting it, then. Don't worry, we'll still keep doing development for your popular previous platform, though!"
You can't make customers accept the product you want to be making, whether those customers are end-users or developers. Microsoft's just put on a big public demonstration of that fact. I find it hard to imagine that Apple could've failed to take notice.
-
Chill, dude. I never said that Python was objectively terrible. I've used it myself, and while it's not my language of choice, I can see why people like it.
When you come from Perl, Python is a blessing !
And personally I like the indentation a block limiter convention.
Also python is quite big in scientific world with numpy & co. taking away market share of Mathworks' matlab.
greets,
Staf.
-
If that is their aim, it would be a little baffling. Microsoft and Windows RT have just given everybody a terrific object lesson in what happens when you try to induce migration to a locked-down platform from an open one .......
Nice rant, just completly missing the point ;)
Noone has sofar suggested that Apple would disable non-Swift apps in future releases of iOS or anything else.
So even if Apple keeps the language to itself, it will still be just a choice. A choice that people who are only interested in developing for the Apple-ecosystem might actually make without loosing anything.
The user will not even notice if an app had been written in ObjC or Swift.
-
That would be why I said "if."
-
C# is used for Microsoft platforms, because Microsoft pushes it, and nobody else really.
The open source runtime Mono has been ported to lots of places
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software))
Microsoft have recently open sourced the compiler. http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/04/roslyn_oss
Whatever platform you want to use, it's likely it's there if you want it.
-
Swift looks modern and nice. It doesn't look as good as Java, but nothing does (and don't get me started about functional programming). In real life there is room for everyone.
-
As usual, Arstechnica have a nice review of Swift... I generally agree with their assessment too.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06/a-fast-look-at-swift-apples-new-programming-language/
-
Yeah, it's another language predicated on the belief that it's the language that is the Source of All Bad Code and not poorly-educated programmers with sloppy mental habits, so if you just change the language to make errors impossible, why, you'll never have any bugs! Just like the last dozen would-be Saviors of Programming.
But I suppose if they're not going to do any serious amount of QA on App Store submissions, they might as well try and get the compiler to do it for them.
-
Chris Lattner (who designed Swift), says Apple haven't decided yet, also the language is still considered beta as the final compiler hasn't been released yet...
Thank you. I'll keep watching to see what they decide.
-
As usual, Arstechnica have a nice review of Swift... I generally agree with their assessment too.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06/a-fast-look-at-swift-apples-new-programming-language/
Interesting article. Thanks Bloodline.
-
I agree 100% with you on Objective-C. I really do like it. And I've been struggling to build libobjc2.a for 68k Amigas. My biggest fear with Swift is that they'll eventually migrate off of Objective-C which would effectively kill the language. Bloodline, if you're interested in helping port libobjc2.a let me know; there are some things there that are over my head.
Back on topic, I think as long as both languages are supported I'm good with Swift and I basically feel the same as you, again. There is a weird sense of detachment involved when looking at and working with Swift. I kinda feel like I don't know exactly how to get there from here, sometimes.
I'm surprised there weren't many references to it's similarity to JavaScript as well. I'm probably in the minority here insofar as I also love JavaScript as a language, outside of the browser. There are some syntax bits I'd like to see in JS, and they are slowing appearing over time. I also like it in the browser, but only because I know it very well.
To be fair you are still allowed to use semicolons as stamement terminators... My biggest gripes are;
The bizzare function definition syntax.
The odd variable/constant type placement (though, they didn't have much choice)
The method calling feels clunky (Obj-C looks weird but is actually rather elegant*)
Due to the unfamiliar nature of the syntax, as someone coming from C, class definitions appear almost random in swift.
My confident, and probably inaccurate, prediction for the future is that Swift will be picked up by beginners and a few hobbyists... But serious developers will stick to Obj-C/C++ since they know it and will almost certainly be working in other C derived languages on other platforms/projects... Swift will then be silently dropped and remembered as an interesting little experiment :)
* I think C++ gets it right as methods are sort of functions in a struct and Obj-C gets it right as methods are executed in response to a message. Both beautiful implementations of their object models!
-
I agree 100% with you on Objective-C. I really do like it. And I've been struggling to build libobjc2.a for 68k Amigas. My biggest fear with Swift is that they'll eventually migrate off of Objective-C which would effectively kill the language. Bloodline, if you're interested in helping port libobjc2.a let me know; there are some things there that are over my head.
Back on topic, I think as long as both languages are supported I'm good with Swift and I basically feel the same as you, again. There is a weird sense of detachment involved when looking at and working with Swift. I kinda feel like I don't know exactly how to get there from here, sometimes.
I'm surprised there weren't many references to it's similarity to JavaScript as well. I'm probably in the minority here insofar as I also love JavaScript as a language, outside of the browser. There are some syntax bits I'd like to see in JS, and they are slowing appearing over time. I also like it in the browser, but only because I know it very well.
I too love JavaScript, and see no similarity with swift... Objective-J is better, actually!?! Why the F didn't apple develop objective-j instead of swift!?
Message sent by the way ;)
-
Ok, so I'm going to spend the holiday (happy birthday Lizzie Windsor!) playing with Swift. I'll see how it goes.