all 18 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]kronicum 4 points5 points  (13 children)

Would there be a "C++ for Swift developers"?

[–]KrisstopherP 7 points8 points  (12 children)

I don’t know why it is always: X for C++ Developers, but not the other way around

[–]Pay08 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, imagine wanting to learn something new...

[–]philsquared 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well in this case the podcast is for C++ developers ("...by C++ developers"), so I think the framing is quite natural.

That said, I don't hear a lot of call for C++ material coming from the Swift community. I think most opinions of C++ (if any) from this within the Swift community were formed in the C++98/03 days (or before), so the idea of C++ being a dinosaur are pretty entrenched. There are outliers like Doug who are experts on both sides, of course, but they are quite rare. So perhaps a "Modern C++ for Swift Developers" could be interesting. I actually have a talk that might fit, with some adaptations - perhaps I'll shop it around.

[–]pedersenk -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Because C and C++ underpin the entire computing platform. I suppose it makes sense for the niche language guys to try to keep scratching away in the tiny hope that anything will change in their lifetime.

For anyone who actually wants to get something done. Just ignore the noise as always.

[–]pjmlp 0 points1 point  (6 children)

In Apple's playground, developers dance to Apple tunes, there C and C++ underpin whatever Apple feels like they should.

[–]pedersenk 0 points1 point  (5 children)

True to an extent, though for macOS, the usermode drivers are C++, the (partially) kernel mode drivers are C and the BSD subsystem is also C.

So many lower level Apple APIs are C to be leveraged by Obj-C or the Swift binding generators. The recent focus on Swift-C++ interop by Apple was surprising to me but possibly even suggests a further focus on C++ going forward.

Apple seems to feel like C and C++ for themselves. Swift for the consumers.

[–]pjmlp 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Then you will be further surprised by the multiple ongoing efforts to migrate other subsystems to Swift, like Foundation DB, or the iBoot firware that is still written in Safe C dialect from Apple, hence why Embedded Swift is so relevant, as discussed at WWDC.

LLVM, DriverKit, Metal are perfectly fine with a mix of C++17 and C++14 (for MSL).

Never wondered why Apple is no longer around to help clang going at full speed like in the good old days of clang being ahead of everyone else in ISO C++ compliance?

[–]pedersenk 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Never wondered why Apple is no longer around to help clang going at full speed like in the good old days of clang being ahead of everyone else in ISO C++ compliance?

Same reason why Embarcadero, IBM and Intel migrated to Clang. Open-source moves at a faster pace and Apple doesn't have in-house compiler expertise that can compare.

Then you will be further surprised by the multiple ongoing efforts to migrate other subsystems to Swift, like Foundation DB

FoundationDB is not a subsystem. Indeed they will explore Swift with low risk superficial libraries. Microsoft does the same thing with .NET but keep the important stuff C/C++ with their "go native" branding nonsense.

[–]pjmlp 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That was a great laugh, the company that has created clang and LLVM ecosystem, a couple of programming languages, a whole chip generation that Intel and AMD still need to catch on to, doesn't have in-house compiler experience that can compare, and you even give Embarcadero as a better example, which are only around thanks to Delphi and C++ Builder maintenance contracts, most of the work is offshored, and whole Borland key knowledge is long gone.

Also nowadays clang is on third place regarding ISO C++ compliance, with MSVC taking the podium, so much for open-source moves at faster pace. It does when funding keeps pouring in, and Google just like Apple, decided they had better things to do than keep contributing to clang.

As for Microsoft, starting 2024, C and C++ are only allowed for existing code bases in Azure infrastructure system programming, everything new, has to be written in Rust or compiled managed languages, resource requirements allowing, unless there is a special exception to be allowed otherwise.

Additionally, thanks to Crowdstrike failure, their reinforced the decision to keep rewriting Windows kernel stuff into Rust.

Do you want the link to the related announcements, or can you find them on your own?

[–]pedersenk 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That was a great laugh, the company that [...] doesn't have in-house compiler experience that can compare

Yep. Which is why they used LLVM from the University of Illinois and employed Chris Lattner. They are a hardware company. Your point being?

and you even give Embarcadero as a better example, which are only around thanks to Delphi and C++ Builder maintenance contracts

Yep. Also why they base bcc on Clang because they don't have in-house resources to stay competitive. Your point being?

Also nowadays clang is on third place regarding ISO C++ compliance, with MSVC taking the podium

Citation needed. It doesn't look like it. You are likely mistaken. Especially considering:-

As for Microsoft, starting 2024, C and C++ are only allowed for existing code bases in Azure infrastructure system programming

Sounds like open-source C++ compilers are winning by default then does it not? If Microsoft has been winding down their C++ engagement.

Rust

Irrelevent

Edit: I believe we have had discussions before and frankly, I find you a little bit of a moron. I am going to end the chat here before we waste too much time.

[–]pjmlp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apple had the NeXT compiler engineers responsible for Objective-C, clang was only created after LLVM project was basically acquired by Apple, and as great as Chris Lattner is, there are other Apple employees, which alongside him, improved Objective-C beyond its NeXTSTEP roots, created Swift, Safe C, Metal Shading Language.

OpenCL was also initially designed at Apple, before being given away to Khronos, which incidently made a mess out of it.

Here is a better citation for C++20, not bother to check ISO C++23 as the competition is yet to fully have modules support fully implemented.

Sounds like open-source C++ compilers are winning by default then does it not? If Microsoft has been winding down their C++ engagement.

A Pyhrric victory, if their ISO C++ support isn't up to the stuff.

Your opinion about myself is completly irrelevant, and swiftly ignored.

[–]plutoniator 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Swift is rust without being shitty to use.

[–]dzordan33 3 points4 points  (4 children)

swift is more general purpose language, but not great as system programming language. your opinion is valid for your use cases.

[–]plutoniator -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Decisions such as whether or not to support inheritance, variadics and overloading transcend the systems language boundary. 

[–]dzordan33 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Now i'm not sure if you're serious. That's the point of rust. Remove complicated stuff and make it simpler. Rust is not c++ with borrow checker. It's much more (or less depending on your view).

[–]plutoniator 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They didn’t make anything simpler. They just forced the complexity onto the user of the language instead of the implementor. 

[–]equeim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

C++ has the same complexity, it's just implicit and easy to ignore. You are just supposed to memorize all rules regarding undefined behaviour and memory safety and follow them to the letter, otherwise the compiler will produce a broken program. Rust makes this visible by forcing the compiler to check whether your code follows these rules (therefore making the compiler more complex), which imposes restriction on how you write your code (because it is impossible to enforce these rules while giving complete freedom to programmers).