
Introducing Phoenix, Swift set free - ingve
https://ind.ie/phoenix/
======
WoodenChair
A few thoughts:

\- Browsing the source code directory, this is very very "early stage" at best
and perhaps too early to warrant a "Get It Now" link

\- There is an alternative implementation of Swift for the interested,
although not open source, being developed by RemObjects:
[http://www.remobjects.com/elements/silver/](http://www.remobjects.com/elements/silver/)

\- Apple should definitely open source Swift, but I doubt this kind of
pressure is going to have any significant sway on their decision one way or
another. When in the past did developer pressure influence any of their major
strategic decisions?

\- Referring to Richard Stallman as "Richard", Steve Jobs as "Steve" and Chris
Lattern as "Chris" in the letter comes off as a bit sarcastic/snippy in tone

\- I don't believe Apple is promoting Swift to encourage lock-in anymore than
Apple promoted Objective-C to encourage lock-in; as others here have stated I
think the author misunderstands Apple's business model/philosophy

~~~
zerr
> Referring to Richard Stallman as "Richard", Steve Jobs as "Steve" and Chris
> Lattern as "Chris" in the letter comes off as a bit sarcastic/snippy in tone

Not necessary. First names are often used for familiarity, and it is fine e.g.
for celebrities. Although, I have no idea who is Chris :)

~~~
WoodenChair
That's right for familiarity. Unless he personally knows each of them, he
shouldn't assume such familiarity. At least where I'm from it's considered
uncouth to do so. Of course it's a cultural thing, and perhaps where you're
from it doesn't sound the same way to your ear.

~~~
zerr
I think it's more personal [opinion] thing rather than cultural. To me, "Mr.
Stallman" would sound sarcastic. And don't forget that we're talking about
celebrities. Another example - if you've grown up on Beatles music, you'd say
Paul and Ringo rather than Mr. McCartney or Mr. Starkey, right? And I'm pretty
sure Paul and Ringo prefer the former one ;)

------
beltex
_" Guys, feel free to make up your own dragons if you want, but your
speculation is just that: speculation. We literally have not even discussed
this yet, because we have a ton of work to do to respond to the huge volume of
feedback we're getting, and have to get a huge number of things (e.g. access
control!) done before the 1.0 release this fall. You can imagine that many of
us want it to be open source and part of llvm, but the discussion hasn't
happened yet, and won't for some time.

Sorry to leave you all hanging, but there is just far too much to deal with
right now.

-Chris"_

[http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-June/073698....](http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-June/073698.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lattner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lattner)

~~~
nickm12
I wonder if there is an intentional difference between "You can imagine that
many of us want it to be open source" and "As you can imagine, many of us want
it to be open source".

~~~
valleyer
I see you're taking his first sentence to heart then.

------
jarjoura
Wow, this _open letter_ is so full of nerd rage that it fails to capture any
of my sympathy. I expected to see a humble effort to create an open-source
Swift compiler that would move the conversation forward. Instead, I'm left
feeling this effort is out of spite alone. All of this before Apple has made
any final decision on the matter one way or another.

It would be really cool if the Swift compiler would build code for both
Windows and Android so we could have true portable software in a language that
isn't C or C++. So I'm hopeful the Swift engineers also see value in that.
Though right now it's a language that's so tightly tied to Objective-C and
Foundation that I suspect it will be a very long time before we see that come
true.

~~~
slm_HN
>Wow, this _open letter_ is so full of nerd rage that it fails to capture any
of my sympathy. I expected to see a humble effort to create an open-source
Swift compiler that would move the conversation forward.

It's funny, when I first skimmed the letter I thought, cool, open source
Swift. However when I moved past skimming and actually read the letter... wow,
it's terrible.

As others have mentioned the first name thing makes the authors sound like
some douchey Brogrammers. The rest of the letter is just condescending, snarky
or just plain undecipherable and wrong. For example "Swift is a beautiful
language but you want to keep it all to yourself. That’s just not on.".
They're not keeping it for themselves, they made the language so it's easier
for developers to create software and in fact they give away the
language/ide/debugger/etc away for free.

"That's just not on." Is this open letter really intended for Tim Cook? Do you
think the leader of Apple actually likes to wade through clumsy slang? Have
you thought of sprinkling the word "hella" around for more emphasis?

I now view the whole thing as a cautionary tale about the dangers of skimming
internet pages.

------
steve918
They should really come up with a better name. Phoenix is over used and even
in open-source has a long history
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox)

~~~
jagger27
Seriously. Unfortunately OpenSwift appears to be taken [0]. It would have been
the obvious choice.

[0]
[http://sourceforge.net/projects/openswift/](http://sourceforge.net/projects/openswift/)

~~~
norcimo5
How about "Veloces" (Latin for 'swift")?

~~~
jagger27
As long as you and everyone else pronounces it correctly as "veh-lawk-ays".
Personally I'd go for "Velocitas" (swiftness).

------
aral
Hey folks, just wanted to say that it’s very early days at the moment (as
WoodenChair commented) — and we’re changing the button to "Sneak Peek" to
reflect this. Poor Greg has been working his fingers off to get it ready (he’s
pulled three all-nighters and that can’t be healthy so he’s been told in no
uncertain terms to get some sleep now) and we should have a running compiler
within the week.

If any of you want to help out, please do get in touch.

Ideally, of course, if Apple opens Swift up, we can contribute to that instead
of duplicating effort :)

~~~
simi_
Startups led by non-engineers just leave a bad taste in my mouth for some
reason. This comment definitely evokes that feeling.

~~~
mindcrash
Erhm. Aral knows code. Trust me :)

Also if you read a bit further, the effort on Phoenix is lead by Greg
Casamento, who is also involved with GNUStep (and thus bringing the NS*
objects to Linux).

~~~
simi_
Thanks for the clarification. I've met Aral and consider him a very smart guy,
I was just commenting about my gut feeling in situations similar to this. I'm
happy to learn I'm wrong in this case. :)

------
k-mcgrady
Aren't they probably just holding off on open sourcing it until...it's
finished. I know they've just shipped '1.0' but I think they're still making
pretty big changes.

~~~
MCRed
Seems likely. It's not like objective-c is closed to other people, and the
extensions to Objective-C that Apple has made are open.

Swift and Objective-C are based on LLVM, which Apple has supported since very
early on, and which is open sourced itself.

It would be kinda out of character for Apple (the real Apple not the boogeyman
Apple which is mostly a straw man) to not release a programming language as
open source.

Hell, the core of OS X (and iOS) is open source... they've only kept the UI
layer closed source (notice Google has not open sourced their platform- map
reduce, page rank, everything related to source they kept closed source. They
only open sourced Android to try and be the Netscape Navigator to Apples
Internet Explorer (iOS). Note that like Android, Navigator was free. Only
after netscape ended did it become firefox, which is open source. Google
shares android source, but to be official "Android" you have to license it
from google, and that comes with a lot of requirements. So, Android is more
properly understood as free)

~~~
valarauca1
>It's not like objective-c is closed to other people, and the extensions to
Objective-C that Apple has made are open.

When Objective-C was developed in 86 it was closed source. NeXT purchased it
(in 88, still closed), and planed to keep it closed source. Orginal Obj-C
would be parsed into byte code to be compiled by the GCC, not directly parsed.
GNU didn't agree with this (adding a way to compile byte code).

Eventually The FSF/GNU sued them over this because the Objective-C compiler
was simply a modification of the GCC, without code contributed back to the
GCC.

Thus, it was open sourced.

As the Clang/LLVM toolchain removes "FSF lawsuits" from possible things that
could happen. I think its unlikely we'll see Swift be open sourced.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
_As the Clang /LLVM toolchain removes "FSF lawsuits" from possible things that
could happen._

That toolchain nonetheless appears to be open sourced, so I'm not convinced it
stands as evidence that Apple won't open source Swift. (Not that it stands as
evidence that they will, either.)

Wikipedia's telling of GNU and Objective-C's history sounds somewhat less
combative than yours. According to Richard Stallman, "NeXT proposed to
distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked
me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, but since
the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask
the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would
consider such schemes to be 'subterfuges' and would be very harsh toward them.
So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the
GPL." There's no suggestion that the FSF ever sued NeXT; Stallman's own
description boils down to "We told them they couldn't do that, and they said
okay and made it free."

~~~
valarauca1
The tool chain was developed in academia for 6 years before they adopted [1].
With an _incredibly_ pervasive BSD-esque license [2].

Thus, companies can use the code without giving themselves back. This is why
Sony uses BSD based OS on the playstation [3]. Its cheap, they can modify it,
and keep what changes they deem necessary.

And yes, I'm aware Apple has given back to the project. But it seems pretty
obvious why they don't use the GCC when you consider how hard Apple has tried
to purge the GPL from its OS [4]. And the legal battle NeXT had with the
FSF/GNU [5].

I stand by, we won't see Apple open source it.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Ope...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Open_Source_License)

[3]
[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU1MzA](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU1MzA)

[4] [http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-
purge/](http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/)

[5]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Popularization_thro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Popularization_through_NeXT)

------
pvaibhav2
[http://www.opensource.apple.com](http://www.opensource.apple.com)

Give it time, I think it will be open. It's just not 100% finished yet,
despite what Apple says.

The Xcode 5.1 sources include clang, lldb etc. We just need to wait for Xcode
6 sources to be up, pretty sure it'll include Swift.

Also worthy of note is that most of these packages are under BSD/APSL license,
which doesn't mandate Apple to release the sources at all (e.g. the OS X
kernel xnu is fully open source). Yet they do it. Google's version of "open"
Android development isn't any different, they develop in private and dump the
code to AOSP only once a particular version is 'finished'.

------
salimmadjd
_Swift is a beautiful language but you want to keep it all to yourself._ We
don't know that's true or not. AFAIK, Apple has not officially commented on
this topic.

Actually, having spoken with Swift team in Apple (rather not mention their
names in case they get in trouble) on this topic, they seemed to be happy
opening it up in general and opening it up as a general purpose language.
Swift could ultimately replace C++ as the language of choice for game
development and more.

That said, IMHO, the language will progress a lot faster initially if it's
driven by a single master than to be pulled into many directions.

~~~
aral
Indeed, I believe there is some internal conflict on this. Hopefully Phoenix
will help sway the debate.

~~~
chaz72
Ah, now that is an interesting belief. Is it based on anything you can share?

------
exelius
Um, I actually disagree with the author's assertion that Swift is designed to
make it harder to co-develop iOS and Android apps. If anything, Swift's syntax
and object model are more similar to Java than Objective-C was, which should
make it easier to write portable code.

I also disagree with the author's entire premise, because Apple open sources a
lot more than its competitors do. Like, a whole lot more. [1] You can download
the source for the entire OS X kernel.

I believe Swift will eventually be open sourced. It would fit entirely within
Apple's strategy to do so: they like to open source foundational technologies,
while keeping the libraries and proprietary features the build on top of them
to themselves.

[1]
[https://developer.apple.com/opensource/](https://developer.apple.com/opensource/)

~~~
Mikeb85
And you can download the source for Google's browser, both OSes, both their
programming languages, etc...

The argument that because OSX's kernel and WebKit are open source that Apple
is somehow 'more open' is silly because they really aren't 'more open'. Maybe
compared to MS...

------
ddrmaxgt37
Whoever wrote that needs to proofread the post a bit and be more familiar with
Apple's strategy.

~~~
MCRed
and history.

------
pjmlp
I really don't get why people stress over this.

Swift only has value with the Mac OS X and iOS ecosystems, specially as a mean
to drag Objective-C developers into the FP world.

There are so many open source languages in the ML family, a few of them are
even used in the industry for several years now. Just go and join one of those
projects.

They will appreciate any help they can get.

~~~
aral
Also remember that Swift is already starting to be taught in schools. Imagine
if a natural language that is taught in schools was tied to a single company.
If, for example, you needed an Apple pen to write English. How much of
literature would we have missed out on? Would Shakespeare have been able to
afford an Apple pen? Thankfully, we never have to find out ;)

~~~
pjmlp
When I graduated, we had to buy our compilers...

------
JoshTriplett
Mentioning the Apple/NeXT GCC/ObjC/GPL history is _not_ a good way to get on
Apple's good side.

------
chc
I'm glad somebody is doing something about this. Swift deserves better than to
serve as a pair of golden handcuffs. I remember back when Swift was first
announced, people said they were sure Apple intended to make Swift free once
it was ready for release. Sadly, Apple didn't live up to people's expectations
on this one.

~~~
mikeash
If people actually expected that, then it was just silly of them. Even if
Apple were completely committed to making Swift open source (and I'm hopeful
they are), I wouldn't expect anything to show up for a couple more months at
the least. Apple often takes their time open sourcing new stuff.

~~~
chc
You can see people in this very thread _still_ expressing the same thought —
"Oh, it's just not finished yet. It'll be open-sourced when it's finished."

------
spdegabrielle
I can't find a license?

~~~
misnome
This. Pretty Ironic (And I opened the source tree, which doesn't have the
licence either). Besides, wouldn't the best way to start this sort of thing be
to write an LLVM frontend, rather than a new main.c?

I get the impression more time has been spent on the "Launch Site" than the
actual "Product".

~~~
chc
I think the primary purpose at this point is to try and get Apple to not force
the community to divide the development effort like this. They would rather
_not_ move forward with this codebase.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting it seems to be more about building an open version of the iPhone
called 'stratosphere' (see this [https://source.ind.ie/project/ind-
ie/blob/master/source/inde...](https://source.ind.ie/project/ind-
ie/blob/master/source/index.html)) Given that Apple went all patent troll on
Google's Android licensees and patents, unlike copyrights, cannot be avoided
by re-expression, I'm wondering about the strategy of making an open phone.
Easily doable in 20 years (post patent expiration) but hard at the moment.

~~~
achalkley
I think "stratosphere" is the Cloud platform. The phone from AFAIK is Indie
Phone.

~~~
listic
I wish Indie Phone all the best, but... haven't OpenMoko
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko)
and Ubuntu Edge
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edge)
shown that open source phones just don't fly? I surely wish they did.

~~~
aral
The phone is several years away… we’re concentrating on building the platform
at the moment — starting with a lovely way to share stuff you care about
between your devices and with other people (without any Facebook-like creepy
uncle in the middle — thus, peer-to-peer). Once we get the UX right on the
core, we’ll go from there. If we fuck up the UX, none of the other stuff
matters. That’s really where we differ with Openmoko, etc. :)

------
GeorgeMac
Just a shout to say, if you believe in what the ind.ie guys are doing, then
please sign their manifesto:
[https://ind.ie/about/manifesto/](https://ind.ie/about/manifesto/) It's time
we valued our privacy one again.

~~~
GeorgeMac
Just to confirm why I posted this. Due to receiving a down vote. Phoenix is a
component of [http://ind.ie](http://ind.ie) and the movement they are trying
to create. User experience driven design/technology, which empowers
individuals to remain connected, while protecting their privacy and freedoms.

------
drawkbox
They should definitely do this as they have in the past with Webkit, canvas,
Khronos support of OpenGL ES (finally getting a focused product out of OpenGL
ES/WebGL), and more.

They might just be taking a bit of an early adopter grab and will open it up
later, hopefully. Metal is awesome as well but just when OpenGL really became
_the_ platform after mobile disrupted gaming.

Even if they don't open up Swift, maybe at least let Phoenix be like a Mono to
their .NET and support it.

Taking a step back it is crazy how much Apple has influenced and taken over
gaming focus in 6+ years. Not only do they control the market and hardware but
naturally now the graphic and native software/platforms.

------
alimoeeny
I think these guys are either very naive (comparing apple and google this way)
and making such a significant business decision based on such shaky arguments.
or this is a PR stunt, in which case who are they targeting, HN?

------
electic
Seeing more and more thoughts be published like this in the last few months.
It seems developer discontent might be growing with Apple.

~~~
MCRed
This is the kind of unfounded complaints we've seen from people about Apple
going back at least to the 1980s. More recently, there was an "outcry" when
Apple waited a few months to release the latest version of OS X as open source
after releasing the retail version.

Truth is, Apple is pretty good about open sourcing their stuff, especially
when compared to their peers (Microsoft, Oracle). But that doesn't fit the
"Google good, Apple bad" narrative that is popular in some circles.

It's important to remember that Android being "open" is googles attempt to
commoditize a competitors product... you don't see google open sourcing core
technologies related to source.

~~~
electic
Here is another one today.

[http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/21/rapidweaver-6/](http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/21/rapidweaver-6/)

------
geofft
Looks like it's based on "swift2js", which I hadn't previously heard of and
seems pretty nifty:

[https://github.com/swift2js/swift2js](https://github.com/swift2js/swift2js)

------
super_mario
Someone hit the commit button too soon. parser.y is missing:

$ make make: __* No rule to make target 'parser.y', needed by 'parser.c'.
Stop.

------
CmonDev
Well, we already know that Swift is not swift at all. Let's see if Phoenix
will die and then resurrect.

