Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: Swift_logo.svg.png (104KB, 2000x1800px) Image search:
[Google]
104KB, 2000x1800px
I think they couldn't have fucked up more badly than this.
Well, Objective-C was very VERY bad, and I sincerely feel those who had to deal with it and develop iOS apps for a living, but at least Objective-C was an actual language.
Swift looks like a half-finished product. I just can't believe that someone authorized the release. It would have NEVER happened with Steve. RIP.
I'll start listing what's wrong with swift and why it should be considered a joke:
>struct class enum types which are almost the same
>optional types. god this is top, it literally solves something that was never a problem. passing around NULL values has to do with sw design skills and no language feature will ever be able to prevent a shitty developer from dereferencing a NULL pointer. optional types just remind you that the thing might be null, more or less like Haskell's Maybe, but who stops you from unwrapping a var that contains nothing? oh but you knew it could be nothing...
>guard statements and optional binding. this feature smells like they absolutely had to come up with some way to justify using optional types
>function calls that require to specify the name of the parameter except for the first onedoSomething("param1", param2: "param2")
>Xcode can't refactor swift code
>function signatures with parameter aliases. just... why?
>verbosity. it was Apple's chance to give up lengthy Obj-C-style method names. some people argue that code documents itself. it's just bullshit.
>no implementation of a default XML parser
>unintuitive ridiculous syntax. splitting a string in java is someString.split("-"). splitting a string in swift is someString.characters.split{$0=="-"}.map(String.init)
>casting with "as" keyword. Oh and don't forget to force casting with 'as!' or 'as?'
>?? operator
>just WHY did they feel the need to invent a new syntax? why?
>>
you sound buttsore
>>
Where did Tim Cook touch you?
>>
>>55342264
All of the extremely popular statically typed languages are basically shit anyways. You have to get down into niche territory like Ocaml and F# if you want a decent statically typed language.
OO was a mistake.
>>
>>55342264
the '??' operator sums up swift as a wholemycoolvariable ?? nilLOL
>>
>>55342264
Holy fuck, these concerns are all so goddamn trivial. You sound like a college freshman in OO classes who has never laid eyes on anything but C-like langs and imperative/OO paradigms.
I suggest you save this post so that you in 5-10 years can look back on how much of a shitstain you were.
>>
>>55345026
2 rupees have been deposited in your loo Rajeesh.
>>
>>55345026
>C-like langs and imperative/OO paradigms
that's what the 99% of the real world software is written in
>>
>>55342264
everything you said is factually inaccurate
git. gud.
>>
>>55342264
>lengthy method names
why? it's not like you ever have to type them, everything is auto-completed for you. and on the Retina Display™ you have plenty of space for descriptive, unambiguous names.
>casting with "as" keyword. Oh and don't forget to force casting with 'as!' or 'as?'
you do not have a grasp of The Optional Type. That is your folly.
in4fter rupees
>>
>>55342264
>>struct class enum types which are almost the same
what is a protocol?
>>optional types. god this is top, it literally solves something that was never a problem. passing around NULL values has to do with sw design skills and no language feature will ever be able to prevent a shitty developer from dereferencing a NULL pointer. optional types just remind you that the thing might be null, more or less like Haskell's Maybe, but who stops you from unwrapping a var that contains nothing? oh but you knew it could be nothing...
>no language feature will ever be able to prevent a shitty developer from dereferencing a NULL pointer
pretty sure the language designers are aware, buddy. it's better to crash in development than production, that's basically why.
>>function calls that require to specify the name of the parameter except for the first one
most funcs have one parameter. it's just syntactic sugar. why not?
>>
>>55342264
sounds like you're trying to write C# style code in Swift
>>
It came swiftly, and went swiftly (into obscurity).
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2