Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 24, 2016, at 1:21 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On May 23, 2016, at 2:17 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> The collection model, API guidelines and standard library are actually >>

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On May 23, 2016, at 2:17 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution wrote: > The collection model, API guidelines and standard library are actually > irrelevant to the ABI. The standard library API and the Swift ABI are > distinct orthogonal concepts. I’m not sure what

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On 19 May 2016, at 10:47, Brent Royal-Gordon wrote: > >> Is completing the generic system fundamental or not? I’d say it is vastly >> more fundamental than removing C style for loops, wouldn’t you? > > Oh, come on. Removing the C-style for loop is not what took up

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On Thu, May 19, 2016, at 02:33 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution wrote: > > > On 17 May 2016, at 23:45, Eric Wing via swift-evolution > > wrote: > > > > So I don’t mind (too much) if it takes longer to get a stable ABI. It > > makes my life harder, but on the

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> Is completing the generic system fundamental or not? I’d say it is vastly > more fundamental than removing C style for loops, wouldn’t you? Oh, come on. Removing the C-style for loop is not what took up time in this release cycle. What took up time is the API guidelines, the new collection

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On 17 May 2016, at 23:45, Eric Wing via swift-evolution > wrote: > > So I don’t mind (too much) if it takes longer to get a stable ABI. It > makes my life harder, but on the flip-side, I don’t want to be stuck > with yet another broken language and ABI. I want this

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:38, Rod Brown wrote: > > While on the face of it, you are correct, the goals have changed > dramatically, I think you are being unfair. The goals changed dramatically last week. It’s there in the git history. Last week was *after* the first

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

Hi, I'm curious, has the Swift team considered not having a public stable ABI for Swift at all, and instead only define some kind of versioned low-level bitcode for packaging purposes which then would be compiled and linked by a system/package repository/App Store service? This would allow

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 17, 2016, at 3:45 PM, Eric Wing via swift-evolution > wrote: > > So I don’t mind (too much) if it takes longer to get a stable ABI. It > makes my life harder, but on the flip-side, I don’t want to be stuck > with yet another broken language and ABI. I want

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

So I don’t mind (too much) if it takes longer to get a stable ABI. It makes my life harder, but on the flip-side, I don’t want to be stuck with yet another broken language and ABI. I want this done right because it will be almost impossible to fix later. Here’s a simple, yet tragic example: BOOL

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

With semantic versioning, the API changes would require the next version to be called 3.0. The challenge is to not attach stability/maturity ‘feelings’ to semantic version numbers. I don’t think people should attach meaning to Swift being 3.0 any more than they do to Chrome being 50.0 If we

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

I do agree with what you are saying, but in a way it seems to also be saying that the version number set by Apple is a bit rushed. A language reaching 3.0 state and not having nailed down ABI stability sounds a lot different than Swift 0.95 or Swift 1.5 being at the same state and I do not

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 17, 2016, at 5:35 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On 16 May 2016, at 18:38, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> Quite sad we could not get into ABI stability for Swift 3... but are we >>

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

+1 -Thorsten > Am 17.05.2016 um 15:38 schrieb Rod Brown via swift-evolution > : > > While on the face of it, you are correct, the goals have changed > dramatically, I think you are being unfair. > > Swift 3 initial scope was determined prior to the input of the

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

While on the face of it, you are correct, the goals have changed dramatically, I think you are being unfair. Swift 3 initial scope was determined prior to the input of the Swift Evolution community, just as it was being Open Sourced. As we have explored the language in many discussions, it has

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On 16 May 2016, at 18:38, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Quite sad we could not get into ABI stability for Swift 3... but are we > talking Swift 3.1 or 4.0? Disappointing is my first thought, in fact worrying. Two years after the language

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

ttner via swift-evolution" <swift-evolution@swift.org> Sent: ‎16/‎05/‎2016 06:07 PM To: "Tim Hawkins" <tim.thawk...@gmail.com> Cc: "Tino Heth via swift-evolution" <swift-evolution@swift.org> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 rele

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On 5/16/16, Chris Lattner wrote: > On May 16, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Eric Wing via swift-evolution > wrote: >>> I'm not an expert in the Linux communities needs and desires. That >>> said, >>> from what I understand, they don’t care at all about ABI

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On May 16, 2016, at 9:03 PM, Haris Amin wrote: > Hey Chris and team, > > This is great news. Any news on when/if libdispatch linux compatibility will > ship with Swift 3? Hi Haris, That is still the goal - I know that many folks are intensely interested in making this

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On May 16, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Eric Wing via swift-evolution wrote: >> I'm not an expert in the Linux communities needs and desires. That said, >> from what I understand, they don’t care at all about ABI stability, since >> everything is typically built from source. >

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 16, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: >> On May 16, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Tim Hawkins > > wrote: >> >> At what point would you consider the Linux product to be viable for >>

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 16, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Eric Wing via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> I'm not an expert in the Linux communities needs and desires. That said, >> from what I understand, they don’t care at all about ABI stability, since >> everything is typically built from

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> I'm not an expert in the Linux communities needs and desires. That said, > from what I understand, they don’t care at all about ABI stability, since > everything is typically built from source. > > -Chris > > Not exactly true. (I care.) Video games (e.g. Steam/Linux) care deeply about ABI

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On May 16, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Dan Stenmark wrote: > With the generics and ABI stability goals getting pushed out to a future > release, how does that affect the plans for Swift concurrency features? Will > the topic still be explored in the Swift 4 timeframe, or do

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 16, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Ryan Lovelett > wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> As we get deeper into the Swift 3 release cycle, we’re beginning to have >> a more precise understanding

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 16, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Tim Hawkins wrote: > > At what point would you consider the Linux product to be viable for > production server side application development. Do you think that goal has > been achieved in swift 3.0. Or is it going to have to wait for the

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

With the generics and ABI stability goals getting pushed out to a future release, how does that affect the plans for Swift concurrency features? Will the topic still be explored in the Swift 4 timeframe, or do you expect that discussion be deferred to 5 or beyond? Dan > On May 16, 2016, at

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On Mon, May 16, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > As we get deeper into the Swift 3 release cycle, we’re beginning to have > a more precise understanding about what the release will shape up to be. > Ted posted details of the Swift 3 release process

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

At what point would you consider the Linux product to be viable for production server side application development. Do you think that goal has been achieved in swift 3.0. Or is it going to have to wait for the ABI lock down. I'm weighting the wisdom of possibly using Swift on linux for

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

On May 16, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Goffredo Marocchi wrote: > Quite sad we could not get into ABI stability for Swift 3... but are we > talking Swift 3.1 or 4.0? We’ll start discussing post-3.0 releases in August. Until Swift 3 is really wound down, it is almost impossible to

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

Quite sad we could not get into ABI stability for Swift 3... but are we talking Swift 3.1 or 4.0? Sent from my iPhone > On 16 May 2016, at 17:43, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On May 16, 2016, at 9:29 AM, David Sweeris

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 16, 2016, at 9:29 AM, David Sweeris wrote: > > >> On May 16, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> That said, it is also clear at this point that some of the loftier goals >> that we started out with

Re: [swift-evolution] Winding down the Swift 3 release

> On May 16, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > That said, it is also clear at this point that some of the loftier goals that > we started out with aren’t going to fit into the release - including some of > the most important generics