>Talking about GC… When Apple introduced GC they told us that it was the latest and greatest shit. It was the future. When introducing GC they told us that "hey - we have ported Xcode to GC - look it is that easy.". So they had more apps using GC from day 1 than using Swift from day 1 (well the WWDC app written in Swift does not count…). Apple had to ship GC-capable versions of their frameworks from day 1. They were even more committed to GC than they are now to Swift so it would not surprise me at all to see Swift let go in a couple of years and buried deep.
No way for Swift to "let go". It solves a problem (having a modern language for OS X to go forward") that Objective-C doesn't.
Besides swift makes sense even without a new set of frameworks. People use it already and are productive. Sure, Swift inspired frameworks would be a better fit, but that not a show-stopper.
GC wasn't that much a deal to let go, because they found a way to do the same thing without it (ARC). It's not like they had to rewrite anything for the new post-GC era.
> GC wasn't that much a deal to let go, because they found a way to do the same thing without it (ARC). It's not like they had to rewrite anything for the new post-GC era.
The official recommendation from Apple was to not transition for GC but only to use it for new projects or for complete rewrites. So it was a big deal for every developer who relied on GC.
And only because something is new does not mean it is modern. All of the concepts that Swift implements are fairly old. Swift is just new.
No way for Swift to "let go". It solves a problem (having a modern language for OS X to go forward") that Objective-C doesn't.
Besides swift makes sense even without a new set of frameworks. People use it already and are productive. Sure, Swift inspired frameworks would be a better fit, but that not a show-stopper.
GC wasn't that much a deal to let go, because they found a way to do the same thing without it (ARC). It's not like they had to rewrite anything for the new post-GC era.