![code cookbook for swift license code cookbook for swift license](https://wbp.intimeprint.pl/templates/64af9ff6ec07d70d68e9adf4e68843a5/img/767e936fe70f69cbb26e6e6402cbf5ec.jpg)
There is no clear roadmap or even mission statement for Swift. And in terms of editor/IDE support there is now technically a LSP implementation, but last I tried, I couldn't even manage to set it up properly. The package manager has, I think, one maintainer, and is so underpowered that most iOS developers don't really use it yet (despite it now being a couple of years old). For example, XCTest's (the test framework's) console output is almost unreadable and there are actually (half-abandoned) third-party tools that try to parse it and format it nicely (while introducing tons of weird bugs), something that test frameworks for other languages can just do for free. Tooling outside of XCode (itself not the greatest of IDE of all times.) is extremely.
#Code cookbook for swift license code
This leads to a lot of "I updated XCode and now the code is not working anymore" issues, especially with more junior developers.
![code cookbook for swift license code cookbook for swift license](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/29/0f/a8/290fa8de2773b8bdcaae61da25b87cd6.jpg)
#Code cookbook for swift license install
Moreover, while technically possible, most people on macOS don't install Swift on its own, but always through XCode, and the two are quite tightly coupled (you can technically change the toolchain, but it's quite an opaque setting IMHO). Swift releases are weirdly coupled to XCode releases, a closed-source IDE. There is a reimplementation of Foundation for Linux which is open source but, surprise, surprise, the two sometimes have different behaviour. While Swift itself is open-source, "Foundation" (which is something of a stdlib of Swift and provides many key pieces of functionality) is not open source - at least on macOS. To me, it always seems as if somebody at Apple saw that companies like Microsoft going open source was good publicity and decided that they should do it now too, without really understanding what "open source" means. Swift manages to be technically open-source while not really being true to the idea of open-source. On the other, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this effort is for?! So on the one hand, if you're a fan of Swift, you have yourself a nice hobby language you can play with on the weekend on your gaming PC. Every part of Rust is open source and is built to work with open roadmaps and very thoroughly documented standard libraries. This is in contrast to Rust, another LLVM language ported to Windows. Instead, if Apple decided to built SwiftUI entirely in the open, then the foundational APIs that are closed-source would have to co-exist with the open source versions in order to work. Huh?! Apple being Apple, each revision of SwiftUI is now glued to a singular release of a major revision of the OS. I call it out as weird because take SwiftUI for example, the main excuse Apple engineers gave for why SwiftUI itself is closed-source is because a lot of important code lives inside of UIKit/AppKit. Then it has this open source version, with a very public compiler (roadmap IS shared) that allows cross platform toolchains like this one to exist. Swift has this weird sort of ecosystem where Apple builds much of the platform in a very secret (most of the roadmap isn't shared), closed-source variant for its own OS.