Good luck with that. One of the reasons JS is the lingua franca is that every browser comes with a JS runtime, all you need to get started is a plaintext text editor and all you need to publish an "app" is cheap/free web space.
Mark my words: Swift won't replace JS, not even PHP.
EDIT: Also, what's the point of writing Swift code in Linux if you aren't developing for iOS? As a non-iOS developer nothing at all compels me to learn Swift. It doesn't bring anything to the table that JS, Python, Ruby etc don't already do better. Except iOS support. HN tends to forget that just because iOS is the default in the US it's not internationally. Apple is a luxury brand, not a commodity one.
The point on having Swift on other platforms means you can write software for things other than iOS/OSX. It's a fun, modern language that brings A LOT to the table that js/py/rb don't (type checking and the ability to distribute binaries, for starters).
But programmers don't want better languages. Programmers mostly just want what they already have. You can't overcome that kind of resistance just by saying "look, here's a language that's more fun and modern".
Programmers say they want better languages, but good luck trying to convince them to switch to a new language just by its merit. The only tangible benefit of Swift is that it can be used instead of Objective-C for iOS -- which is important for iOS because Objective-C poses an even bigger hurdle by virtue of its unfamiliar syntax. Swift wins on iOS because it competes with a language nobody wanted to learn to begin with.
Even as far as familiarity goes, the only thing Swift looks familiar to (based on first impressions) is Ruby, except it uses a more familiar C-like syntax (i.e. braces). While Ruby programmers are extremely visible (especially in startup/valley crowds) there aren't that many of them -- not to mention that some have already moved on to Rust or JS.
With TypeScript and/or ES6(7)+Babel. These have a pretty healthy userbase between them and there's a lot of excitement around ES6 which leads me to think that developers do want better languages.
Also... I want a better language. I'm not sure how you'll convince me otherwise and I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment.
Secondly - Swift is going to have a lot of developer support. Because native apps are are increasingly dependent on a corresponding Web API - I think it's reasonable to expect people to be happy about sharing code between the front and back ends of their apps. I think nodes biggest advantage over any other server-side languages is that I can use node packages in both place.
Also, Down-votes? Really? It's not the most radical idea in the world and I fail to see how someone could take offence from it.
PS: Apologies but I don't have time to watch that video right so I hope I haven't got the wrong end of the stick.
Programmers do want better languages, but they are extremely allergic to friction.
Parts of ES6/7 are relatively low friction thanks to Babel. But even so moving the majority of JS devs to modern JS is a very slow and long process.
Swift may make a dent if Swift-to-JS becomes a thing, but compile-to-JS languages are mostly a failed experiment (see the lack of success of "serious" languages like Dart or the decline of CoffeeScript). The advantage of Babel over other to-JS compilers is that you're just compiling JS to JS and it carries the promise that one day you won't need the compilation step at all.
At the risk of having to swallow my words, I don't think Swift-in-the-browser poses any risk to JS. I also don't think Swift-on-the-server will have a major impact, although I can imagine iOS-heavy shops wanting to use Swift when developing server APIs for their apps.
I agree that Apple will carry on regardless. Apple is all about controlling their ecosystems, so I wouldn't be surprised if they try to pose Swift as an alternative to JS (much like their unilateral CSS extensions back in the day).
About the video: basically Douglas Crockford (of JSON fame and JSLint infamy) argues that history has proven that developers (as a whole) favour similarity over "betterness" when it comes to the success of programming languages. They're more likely to pick something that is nearly exactly like what they already know than something that requires them to adjust their mental model, even if it is superior in nearly every way. The entire series is worth a watch IMO, and helps appreciating why and how JS got to the point where it is today.
I agree that server-side Swift may become a thing for iOS developers writing their own server APIs, but I'm only inclined to believe that it will at best become yet another alternative alongside Node, Ruby, Python and PHP. After all, Swift will only be a logical choice if you're already using Swift as the primary language -- i.e. only if you're writing native iOS apps.
Considering how previous attempts to pretend you're not actually writing JS worked out (Ruby developers using CoffeeScript, Java developers using Dart or GWT, Python developers using PyJS, etc) I don't think JS in the browser is going anywhere, no matter how much some people would wish it.
I agree with a lot of this. One thing I would add - it's your job to integrate development into the rest of the organisation. UX, design, marketing, sales. Failure to do so leads to animosity between development and the rest of the organisation. Animosity undermines the goals of the organisation. In my experience, the biggest issue to deal with when managing developers is that they feel like they're tasked with implementing stupid ideas created by idiots. its never that simple, and developers are generally rational people who, given all the facts, know when to digg I. And resist something, and when to swallow a bitter pill for the greater good.
I think the deeper point is that people feel there's a disconnect from the perceived damage an action incurs and the punishment assigned to it. Rightly or wrongly that's how people feel, and what is the law for in the end?
It's called "Rule Of Law". Why the hell should anybody else bother respecting the law, when it is patently clear that the law as written is not actually what the "law" that is used.
When people that have clearly violated the law - like certain people in the CIA, for example - are not even prosecuted, it is hard agree with people that think it is "just" to give someone life in prison for allegedly committing as far lesser crime.
At worst, Ross Ulbricht is accused of an attempted conspiracy of murder. People in the CIA actually killed people, in ways that are always illegal.
With so much effort going into life extension, I feel this is the wrong perspective on the problem. It's not about making technology more accessible to the elderly, but more about making the elderly fit for the modern and ever changing world.
As brutal as it might sound, making technology accessible to the current "state of the art" in terms of what it means to be old is a long term solution to a short term problem... I hope.
I'm not an expert on these issues, but I haved heard mention of the Singapore treaty and that it already provides investment protection. Can anyone explain why these protections are deemed no longer suitable?