Will Swift eventually replace Python

Forum: PC programming Swift the new Pascal / Delphi?





I like to look around what new alternatives are out there and neither C or C ++ could convince me. Apparently this language can be really "fun" again. Bsic, Pascal / Delphi, Swift so it would look fitting for me. C pretty much spoiled the fun. The Pascal / Delphi comparison refers to current versions not to the primeval times from the 78-90s! SWIFT is now also available for Windows. I see a lot of parallels to Pascal / Delphi- Everything that is touted here by many as an advantage in C has been thrown out / avoided with Swift as with Pascal. http://www.swiftkurs.de/der-zuweisungsoperator/ Apple itself is converting its own applications to Swift, so the language should slowly be reliable for developments https://www.heise.de/mac-and-i/ message / Swift-Apple-provides-numerous-apps-on-new-programming-language-to-4543449.html There are also reasonable development tools for Swift. I think this language could actually become serious competition for C ++ in the long term in the embedded> area and I am happy about it because, as I said, I cannot understand the hype about C or C ++ https://www.makeuseof.com/ tag / program-swift-in-windows / Since the swift code is open, will there be a real Windows implementation soon?



Well, Google has Go, Microsoft C #, Mozilla Rust, and Apple now has Swift and no longer needs to borrow Objective-C. Everyone has their own programming language, where they can mess around with it at will without anyone interfering.



Gegeg J. wrote:> Don't understand the hype about C or C ++ Well, I find the hype very exaggerated. C is around 50 years old, C ++ more than 30. You can't really speak of a newfangled hype. More of an industry standard ;-). C is has C. This is still the best solution for many hardware-related applications. Although I don't know the other languages ​​well enough to deny that they are not or not even better suited for it. The problem is that you have to assert yourself first. What annoys me personally about C ++ is that there is now a desperate attempt to pack all possible and impossible features into the language. As a result, modern C ++ has become incredibly complex. Only real experts can claim to be really familiar with it.



Are you actually here on your personal anti-c-C ++ campaign? Do you have to deal with any trauma or your own inability to learn C and C ++? Your great edit on the "STM32 for Beginners" article is pretty screwed up by the way - the punctuation marks are in the wrong place, and it is not properly explained - so flat trolling.


maybe it's just because someone likes one language and not another? He wrote nothing else. Maybe Dr Sommer is on a Pro C campaign? Since he is always there when it comes to C to defend it? So he's obviously doing professional trolling ... if not, just stay away from the discussion instead of disturbing!



Mariella M. wrote:> maybe it is simply because someone likes one language and> another not? And that has to be proclaimed in a number of new threads? Mariella M. wrote:> If not, just stay away from the discussion instead of disturbing! So it is only a technical discussion if you are against C?



Gegeg J. wrote:> I think this language could therefore actually become serious competition for> C ++ in the long term in the embedded> area and> am happy about it because, as I said, I cannot understand the hype about C or C ++> Swift does not support manual memory management like C and C ++, which is needed for embedded. Swift's metaprogramming is too dynamic and runtime-based for embedded. moep wrote:> What annoys me personally about C ++ is that meanwhile desperate attempts are being made> to put all possible and impossible features into the language. You don't have to use it. C ++ is exactly what comes out of it when you want to combine abstraction, tight control, and efficiency. Up to now there is no language that can do this exactly; if you want to have these features you need C ++. In the future, maybe (hopefully) Rust will come as an alternative. Other languages ​​like Pascal can be nice too, but that's exactly what they can't do. If they could, they wouldn't be as nice and friendly as they are. For example, I recently worked with Kotlin and was sad that it doesn't know any variadic templates and tuples like C ++, with which you can do some nice things.


Is that a new flycatcher thread for the "C is shit" trolls :-) @ "Gegeg", as soon as Apple has written its operating system completely in Swift, I'll take the language seriously :-)


Udo S. wrote:> as soon as Apple has completely written its operating system in Swift> I take the language seriously :-) You did not understand what Swift is and what it is for ?! It is not about that you can program an operating system in C and not with Swift .. so you are completely wrong here. It is not about that you can do everything in C .. you can do that in assembler too .. because hardly anyone is so hammered and doing it. And Swift is already in its infancy for embedded and I hope it spreads further, or even Pascal ;-) Those who are so hot for C can stay with it and don't need to take part here, but others may look over the top and are rather scared off by C, for them this thread ... for the C fans .... not

: Edited by user


Mariella M. wrote:> It's not about being able to program an operating system in C> and not with Swift .. Therefore, in the embedded area, programming is often done without an operating system, i.e. the application is implemented like an operating system. And that just has to go with the language.


Dr. Sommer wrote:> And that has to go> with the language and ?! It works with Pascal too, why shouldn't it be feasible with Swift ?!



Mariella M. wrote:> why should it not be feasible with Swift>?! Dr. Sommer wrote:> Swift does not support manual memory management like C and C ++, which> is needed for embedded.


Mariella M. wrote:> Those who are so hot for C can stick with it and> do not need to participate here either, but others may look over the> plate and are rather put off by C, for them this> thread is. .for the C fans .... non-critical voices are not welcome. What does that remind me of ... Have fun :-)


regardless of the fact that it is primarily not about embedded, because naturally swift goes for this .. it would be nice if we stick to the general advantages of Sfwift and the C missionary could be omitted .. Yeah, C goes for everything, we understand , and that's exactly why C is poop for a lot! This advantage is also the biggest disadvantage. And that's about ... so I'm not going to go into it further, because thread is usually broken by a single individual .. It's about the topic being broken because of splitting hairs. Take out embedded .. and stay with the PC programming ... maybe it makes more sense .. embedded was just one example because there are already first implementations of Swift. This is also in the area of ​​PC programming .. not without reason .. that's why it is superficial!

: Edited by user


Dr. Sommer wrote:> Swift doesn't support manual memory management like C and C ++, which> you need for embedded. Swift's metaprogramming is too dynamic and> runtime-based for embedded. What a narrow-minded definition of "embedded". Embedded is often called quad-core ARM-A53 with FPGA support (e.g. Xilinx Ultrascale).



Mariella M. wrote:> regardless of the fact that it is not primarily about embedded. Yes, it was possible: Gegeg J. wrote:> I think this language could therefore actually become serious competition for> C ++ in the long term in embedded> area On PC / server programming sees the whole Naturally different, no one denies that. Swift then competes with Java, C #, JS, Kotlin, Rust, Scheme, ruby, Python, etc., and then you need very good arguments. By the way, posting under different names in one thread is forbidden here: Help: Forum Terms of Use Ursel wrote:> Embedded is now called> Quad-core ARM-A53 with FPGA support (Xilinx> Ultrascale e.g.). The programming is very uncharacteristic of embedded. If you take all of this under embedded, you could just as well understand it as programming Cortex-A-based servers. And even if so, just about any other language is possible, and Swift has to stand up to them.



Dr. Sommer wrote:> Other languages ​​such as Pascal can also be nice, but> that is exactly what they cannot do. For Rust, D and Nim I don't know what is missing compared to C ++. Well, Nim and D have a garbage collector, but it's optional. And for the non-professionals, Nim is just as easy as Python. But when it comes to the Heise trolls, small, new languages ​​have no chance anyway - unless Apple, Google or Facebook are behind them. https://www.heise.de/forum/heise-Developer/News-Kommentare/Programmiersprachen-Nim-gende-als-stabile-Version-1-0-vor/forum-434620/comment/



Dr. Sommer wrote:> The programming is very uncharacteristic of embedded. Only if you follow your narrow-minded definition. Embedded is about more than just simple flashing on an 8-bit AVR. Powerful ARM SoCs are used for many very typical embedded applications. Dr. Sommer wrote:> If one encompasses all of this under embedded, one could just as well understand it to mean> programming of servers based on Cortex-A. Yes, Embedded can sometimes be closer to server programming than your blinkers on the AVR.



Stefan S. wrote:> For Rust, D and Nim I don't know what is missing compared to C ++ Can you recommend good tutorials for D and Nim, which also explain how the more complicated C ++ features look there? In particular, Move Semantics, RAII, variadic templates, fold expressions, closures, manual memory management ... The usual beginner tutorials only show you the good side and you have to look for whether it really can do everything ...



Ursel wrote:> Powerful ARM SoCs are used for many very typical> embedded applications. Then maybe that's the embedded area, but not embedded programming. And then the question of embedded programming languages ​​becomes obsolete. The choice of programming language depends on the technical Environment, not what you ultimately do with it. I don't write a server application in C because it processes measurement data, and a microcontroller program not in Cobol just because it is used in a bank!



Dr. Sommer wrote:> Then maybe this is the embedded area, but not> embedded programming. And confirmed again: narrow-minded definition. Dr. Sommer wrote:> And then the question of> embedded programming languages ​​is obsolete. You still haven't noticed which sub-forum you are in and what the topic of this thread is.



Gegeg J. wrote:> Everything that is touted as an advantage here by many at C has been thrown out / avoided at> Swift Why should one use something that offers no advantages? A language lives from its libraries and examples (patterns). Hence Python, Java, C / C ++, and not something exotic that nobody programs in. It's no different with the uC, Arduino and AVR (and earlier PIC, the simple development lived on Microchips AppNotes) instead of any more modern uC from other manufacturers.