On 06/05/2014 10:09 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> On 05/06/14 16:33, Michael Torrie wrote:
> > In any case I'm a bit surprised by people comparing Python to Swift at
> > all, implying that Python would have worked just as well and Apple
> > should have chosen it to replace Objective C.
> Because if you look at the spec, Swift is essentially a statically typed
I guess I'm not following your argument. Are you saying Swift should
adopted Python syntax (similar to the .net language Boo) or are you
saying Apple should have adopted Python instead?
> Swift and Python will also be used in the same niche. C will still be
> used for low-level stuff. Swift is not a replacement for C. It's a
> replacement for Objective-C.
No they won't be used in the same niche. Objective C is certainly not
used in the same niche as Python, so why would Swift? I don't expect to
see any major OS X app written completely in Python, nor would I expect
and of the core frameworks to be written in Python. They will be
written in Swift however.
> > Swift provides a cleaner system
> > for developers to work in than Obj C did (which, by the way has
> > reference counting), but carries on the same object model that
> > developers are used to (and existing frameworks use).
> That is what PyObjC does as well.
Not quite what I mean. As you said yourself, Swift is aiming to replace
ObjC. Thus core system frameworks will slowly be replaced over time with
frameworks written in Swift (binary, compiled frameworks). So you'll be
using PySwift in the future instead of PyObjC, which should be an easy
bridge to create since the object model is not changing.