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.
I didn't suggest you put it out on multiple platforms. I suggested you port it to Windows, just Windows, since you claimed it wouldn't be difficult.
Now you're saying it is so difficult only a company could do it. Make your mind up.
As to doing it on your own, if it's too much work for your, get help. GitHub is there for you to both host the code and run the development as a team effort.
I suggested you port it to Windows, just Windows, since you claimed it wouldn't be difficult.
For APPLE this shouldn't be difficult.
Now you're saying it is so difficult only a company could do it.
I'm talking about APPLE. A multi-billion-dollar COPORATION with tons of Linux, Mac and Windows developers on staff.
Apple developed this programming l
Make your mind up.
Learn to read.
As to doing it on your own, if it's too much work for your, get help. GitHub is there for you to both host the code and run the development as a team effort.
I'll let Apple know that they need help on the Windows port.
You're right. I only care about Swift as an end user. It's not worth my time as a programmer to do someone else's job to port their programming language to a popular platform.
What you seem to be completely missing is that nobody has the obligation to do the port you want done. You may think Apple would be better off if it did a port, but apparently the people running the project at Apple don't agree. Apple has the resources to do the port, but it isn't free for them either, and they can set their own priorities which do not have to agree with yours.
I used to work in the video game industry when the PlayStation 2 (Linux-based), xBox (Windows-based) and GameCube (probably Linux-based) were current gen consoles. The developers would code on the PlayStation 2, and then port to the other consoles from the same codebase. A generalized bug fixed for the PlayStation 2 got fixed for the other platforms. Nintendo rejected anything that looked like a PlayStation 2 port, which required more work for the GameCube version than the Xbox version. Using a common codeb
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.
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
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:If this is open source... (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)
Ouch! I just walked into a goalpost.
I swear it wasn't there before.
Re: (Score:2)
If a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult, YOU do it. That's the point of open source.
Re: (Score:2)
If a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult, YOU do it. That's the point of open source.
I'm not a CORPORATION with the resources to develop a new programming and put it out on multiple platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't suggest you put it out on multiple platforms. I suggested you port it to Windows, just Windows, since you claimed it wouldn't be difficult.
Now you're saying it is so difficult only a company could do it. Make your mind up.
As to doing it on your own, if it's too much work for your, get help. GitHub is there for you to both host the code and run the development as a team effort.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggested you port it to Windows, just Windows, since you claimed it wouldn't be difficult.
For APPLE this shouldn't be difficult.
Now you're saying it is so difficult only a company could do it.
I'm talking about APPLE. A multi-billion-dollar COPORATION with tons of Linux, Mac and Windows developers on staff.
Apple developed this programming l
Make your mind up.
Learn to read.
As to doing it on your own, if it's too much work for your, get help. GitHub is there for you to both host the code and run the development as a team effort.
I'll let Apple know that they need help on the Windows port.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Apple's job to do a Window's port.
Open source only means that the souce is open, and available for who ever wants to take on the task.
Clearly you are not up to it. Therefore you'll have to do without.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Apple's job to do a Window's port.
Maybe Microsoft can do it since they're interested in Open Source programming languages. For example, Objective-C for Windows.
https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/ [github.com]
Clearly you are not up to it.
You're right. I only care about Swift as an end user. It's not worth my time as a programmer to do someone else's job to port their programming language to a popular platform.
Therefore you'll have to do without.
I'll use the Cygwin port.
Re: (Score:2)
What you seem to be completely missing is that nobody has the obligation to do the port you want done. You may think Apple would be better off if it did a port, but apparently the people running the project at Apple don't agree. Apple has the resources to do the port, but it isn't free for them either, and they can set their own priorities which do not have to agree with yours.
Re: (Score:2)
You're either dumber than an ashtray, or you're a troll.
My question is perfectly valid. No reason to insult me for asking a question.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is different.
I used to work in the video game industry when the PlayStation 2 (Linux-based), xBox (Windows-based) and GameCube (probably Linux-based) were current gen consoles. The developers would code on the PlayStation 2, and then port to the other consoles from the same codebase. A generalized bug fixed for the PlayStation 2 got fixed for the other platforms. Nintendo rejected anything that looked like a PlayStation 2 port, which required more work for the GameCube version than the Xbox version. Using a common codeb
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: (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: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.
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.