
Swift for Windows - chrisamanse
https://swiftforwindows.codeplex.com
======
kybernetyk
That's great. Now we need a UI framework :)

~~~
Maarten88
Maybe it'd be possible to use code from the Microsoft iOS to Windows bridge?
It's for objective c, but it bridges UIkit to UWP controls...

[https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/master/Frameworks/...](https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/master/Frameworks/UIKit)

------
marvel_boy
Newbie here. How is this possible? I guess that most of the libraries UIKit,..
are only available on MacOS and Unix. How can this run on Windows?

~~~
chrisamanse
This is just Swift :) It does not include the UIKit or AppKit framework. Not
yet at least. Let's hope that Apple open source them too.

~~~
Razengan
Apple should drop the bomb at WWDC and announce macOS as open source.

~~~
untog
Hah. I'm sure they'll do it just after they finally open up iMessage.

~~~
Razengan
Their online tech, bundled apps, and the Aqua GUI style don't need to be
opened up for macOS* itself + the Kits + Finder to be open sourced.

If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could
still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can.

It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release
custom "distros" of it, say with an up-to-date OpenGL, or even a Wine/DirectX
emulation layer baked in so we can just double-click on any .exe and have it
run natively.

* As I'm assuming/hoping it's going to be called starting June 13. They could open source "OS X" while keeping the "macOS" brandname for themselves.

~~~
untog
My point is that Apple has no interest in doing any of that.

> If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could
> still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can.

But Apple would lose a huge amount of money on hardware sales, which is where
they _make_ their money. Apple even tried an approved clones program in the
90s, it was a miserable failure and one of the first things Jobs did on his
return was kill it.

> It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release
> custom "distros" of it

Which Apple _really_ wouldn't want. One of the selling points of OS X is the
lack of variation in both software and hardware.

~~~
pcwalton
I completely agree with all your points, but to be fair iOS dominates desktop
Mac in terms of revenue to begin with ($51B iPhone + $7B iPad vs. $7B Mac).
That's reflected in the fact that Apple continues to open source XNU on
desktop (granted, not in anywhere near approaching an open-process, or
complete, manner) but not on mobile. Apple has historically been more willing
to open source things they don't make money on (e.g. LLVM and Swift). Seven
billion dollars is a far cry from zero revenue, but it's an interesting trend
nonetheless.

~~~
Razengan
Many people who like Macs will continue to buy Macs even if OS X was freely
available on other PCs, and OS X would continue to indirectly generate revenue
for Apple even after it were open-sourced:

For one, many more people will have access to the Mac App Store and the iBook
Store, leading to increased sales for apps like Final Cut and Logic. There'll
be many more potential customers for their iCloud Drive storage plans. Last
but not least, it will drastically lower barriers for iOS/tvOS/watchOS
development as people will be able to develop on any PC they want, not to
mention it would increase the pool of people making native Mac apps as well.

Apple can still differentiate Macs through their hardware, things like their
pressure-sensitive trackpads, form factor and by keeping bundled apps (like
Photos and stuff) closed-source and exclusive to Macs.

------
ah-
Codeplex still exists?

