Hacker News Reader

There is already MacRuby and RubyMotion. They tried using Java years ago. It failed. Developers didn't like it. Existing stuff simply doesn't mix that well with Cocoa and that style of programming. That is why something like Swift was needed.

I really don't get why you can bring up languages such as Rust and Go, and complain about Apple's special snowflake approach. Suddenly Apple is doing something developers have been demanding from them for years and something lots of other companies like Google, Mozila and Microsoft has already done. But oh no, because it is Apple, it is all wrong.

It's unfair to lump Mozilla in with the rest, since Rust isn't at all propriety. It has been open source for a long long time: https://github.com/mozilla/rust

Suddenly Apple is doing something developers have been demanding from them for years and something lots of other companies like Google, Mozila and Microsoft has already done.

And yet they've decided to do it again, with yet another incompatible language! Joy of joys!

(And as for Java, it was my understanding that Apple had hobbled it by refusing to release updates on a timely basis.)

> Apple had hobbled it by refusing to release updates on a timely basis.

I can see how they could get tired of being forced to ship almost-monthly updates just to support an extra language with very limited adoption. If you have to make that sort of effort, you'll probably do it for your native tools only (like Microsoft does with .Net). Besides, Java apps on OSX looked better than Java apps on Windows, but they were still recognizably different from Obj-C ones.

I wish somebody would write an OS in Python 3...

Sun should simply have hired some mac people and done it themselves. Entrusting the success of your entire company ( they changed their ticker symbol to JAVA!) to a 3rd party vendor's whims was and is silly.

"(And as for Java, it was my understanding that Apple had hobbled it by refusing to release updates on a timely basis.)"

That's a different, later issue.

Early on in the life of OS X, Apple offered a Java interface to the Cocoa class frameworks. In theory, you could write OS X applications using Java, calling into the Apple frameworks instead of using Swing or whatever Java frameworks.

This wasn't all that well supported, didn't perform well, and wasn't popular.

That is not quite right.

The Java/Objective-C bridge existed in the early days as they weren't sure if developers would pick Objective-C, so they decided to bet on two horses.

As Objective-C eventually won the hearts of Mac OS X developers, the bridge was deprecated and a few years later the full Java support.

Agreed that the lack of using an existing (and open-source!) language is annoying and frustrating to deal with (think of where we'd be if they invested that time and effort into improving Ruby/Python/whatever instead!). But because of the desire for compatibility with Objective-C, and Apple's general desire to call all the shots regarding their ecosystem, this move doesn't surprise me in the least.

Apple consistently represents a step backwards for both developers and users, in terms of engineering and freedom, but they've amassed enough capital at this point that the hope of them simply withering on the vine and dying off is probably not going to happen.

At least Microsoft and Google show off their new projects and code so everyone can learn from them and read their research.

any proof to back up those claims?

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/

http://research.google.com/

http://research.apple.com/

Hint: one of these things is not like the other...see if you can figure out which using only the power of curl.

The fact that this has static typing is a huge difference to "just improving" ruby/python. That approach couldn't come close to getting the same early-error-catching dev experience, and performance. And amongst static languages, Apple wasn't likely to recommend C++ as simple, were they? And Rust/D are also quite low level, nor do they have the Objective-C legacy to consider. So really, you're probably left with C# (or maybe Java), and those are so old and large (esp. the libraries) by now that they're unlikely to naturally port to Apple's environment.

Frankly, a bit of a clean up every decade or two is not exactly often, right?

What about the special snowflake projects of google, mozilla, or sun? Apples language development is no less valid than google developing Go, or mozilla developing rust. This just shows your inherent bias.

I've been amazed recently how many open-source projects that we rolled into our linux product were Apple sourced: LLVM, Clang, libdispatch, webkit, OpenCL, zeroConf. Can't think of anything google has done for me recently.

And if there is anyone who will knock-this out of the park, its Chris Lattner. LLVM, Clang, and openCL is all him. He has done more for compiler tech than anyone in 30 years.

>At least Google had the decency to pick a language everybody was already using and use that.

If you think Java is remotely comparable in power and expressiveness to Objective C, you should probably reconsider your line of work.

The rise in popularity of Java nearly drove me from the industry it is such a verbose half baked pile of garbage. I could fill your browser with things you can do in Objective C that you cannot do in Java at all and this incredible flexibility is why Apple is such an agile company with such limited head count.