Open source means that the source code is available and you can modify it and redistribute it with minimal conditions.
It does not mean "portable", which already had a word describing the concept, namely "portable"!
Most open source software ends up ported to other platforms, because as the source is available, it's relatively easy for someone to do it if the original maintainer doesn't want to, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
You can read more about open source here [opensource.org]. The related concept of F
Most open source software ends up ported to other platforms, because as the source is available, it's relatively easy for someone to do it if the original maintainer doesn't want to, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
If you're putting out Open Source software for Linux and Mac, a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult. Especially since Apple has Windows development teams on hand to do the work.
If you're putting out Open Source software for Linux and Mac, a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult.
If that's true and Apple still hasn't done it, then you can assume Apple doesn't care about the Windows platform. I doubt many people would argue with that assumption.
Especially since Apple has Windows development teams on hand to do the work.
I assume those development teams are doing things that are valuable to Apple's bottom line.
Since it is open source, you can do it if you want. Or Microsoft can do it.
Anyway, if you want it more than Apple and Microsoft then you can build it yourself. That's what open source gives you---the ability to take the code and run with it however you w
Because you seem to think that Apple should do what you want, and you don't seem to get the point of Open Source. You can reasonably ask questions like "Is there a Windows version?" or "When will there be a Windows version?" or "Why isn't there a Windows version?". You asked "Where's the Windows version?" and then acted like Apple had some sort of obligation to provide one.
The point of Open Source, here, is that you don't have to rely on Apple to come up with a port. Somebody else can. You can start
You can reasonably ask questions like "Is there a Windows version?" or "When will there be a Windows version?" or "Why isn't there a Windows version?". You asked "Where's the Windows version?" [...]
Those are all the same question.
[...] and then acted like Apple had some sort of obligation to provide one.
If Apple wants Swift to be a successful language, it should be on all the major platforms. Apple doesn't lack the resources to do this, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to ask for a Windows version. It is unreasonable to portray me as the villain for asking the question. Of course, Swift could end up in quiet obscurity like Objective-C and Microsoft can support it for Windows via Open Source.
If that was the case, they shouldn't have released Swift as open source.
Why not? There are benefits to releasing something as Open Source, and there are disadvantages. Very few people outside the Apple ecosystem cared about Objective-C. My guess would be that Apple is being helpful towards serious Mac/iOS developers, who will have Macs and will be able to run the Apple version, and don't care about anyone else.
If this is open source... (Score:0, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:0, Redundant)
You may have misunderstood what "open source" means.
Open source means being available on all platforms (i.e., Linux, Mac and Windows).
Looks like Swift got ported to Cygwin. :P
https://github.com/tinysun212/swift-windows [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Open source means that the source code is available and you can modify it and redistribute it with minimal conditions.
It does not mean "portable", which already had a word describing the concept, namely "portable"!
Most open source software ends up ported to other platforms, because as the source is available, it's relatively easy for someone to do it if the original maintainer doesn't want to, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
You can read more about open source here [opensource.org]. The related concept of F
Re: (Score:1)
Most open source software ends up ported to other platforms, because as the source is available, it's relatively easy for someone to do it if the original maintainer doesn't want to, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
If you're putting out Open Source software for Linux and Mac, a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult. Especially since Apple has Windows development teams on hand to do the work.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're putting out Open Source software for Linux and Mac, a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult.
If that's true and Apple still hasn't done it, then you can assume Apple doesn't care about the Windows platform. I doubt many people would argue with that assumption.
Especially since Apple has Windows development teams on hand to do the work.
I assume those development teams are doing things that are valuable to Apple's bottom line.
Since it is open source, you can do it if you want. Or Microsoft can do it.
Anyway, if you want it more than Apple and Microsoft then you can build it yourself. That's what open source gives you---the ability to take the code and run with it however you w
Re: (Score:2)
But crying on Slashdot? That gets you nothing except ridicule.
I asked a question. I don't understand why everyone is acting so butthurt about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you seem to think that Apple should do what you want, and you don't seem to get the point of Open Source. You can reasonably ask questions like "Is there a Windows version?" or "When will there be a Windows version?" or "Why isn't there a Windows version?". You asked "Where's the Windows version?" and then acted like Apple had some sort of obligation to provide one.
The point of Open Source, here, is that you don't have to rely on Apple to come up with a port. Somebody else can. You can start
Re:If this is open source... (Score:2)
You can reasonably ask questions like "Is there a Windows version?" or "When will there be a Windows version?" or "Why isn't there a Windows version?". You asked "Where's the Windows version?" [...]
Those are all the same question.
[...] and then acted like Apple had some sort of obligation to provide one.
If Apple wants Swift to be a successful language, it should be on all the major platforms. Apple doesn't lack the resources to do this, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to ask for a Windows version. It is unreasonable to portray me as the villain for asking the question. Of course, Swift could end up in quiet obscurity like Objective-C and Microsoft can support it for Windows via Open Source.
Re: (Score:0)
Apple does want Swift to be a successful language... for developing Mac and iOS apps.
They're not stupid. They are not about to give the competition any help if they can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not stupid. They are not about to give the competition any help if they can avoid it.
If that was the case, they shouldn't have released Swift as open source.
WHY is it open source...? (Score:0)
> If that was the case, they shouldn't have released Swift as open source.
Very possible. Maybe a good question for Lattner is why did they do that?
"HEY Lattner! Why did you make Swift open source?"
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? There are benefits to releasing something as Open Source, and there are disadvantages. Very few people outside the Apple ecosystem cared about Objective-C. My guess would be that Apple is being helpful towards serious Mac/iOS developers, who will have Macs and will be able to run the Apple version, and don't care about anyone else.
Re: (Score:0)
So you think Apple is helping make Swift popular by open sourcing it, yet you say it can't be successful unless they do a Windows version.
Which is it? Will Swift help the competition or not without a Windows version?