Lower-level languages make portability harder, Swift isn't necessary but as mentioned above, it greatly helps the process.
There are thousands of apps that won't be made compatible overnight. An x86 translator would give much closer to full compatibility.
That comment was about apps that are Windows exclusives, not Mac x86 apps. Windows apps would need more than a recompile.
In reality most apps running on the Mac are written in Objective C, Open GL or what not. Everything using Apple's API would just be a recompile and lots of C code will also just be a compile.
If they want Windows apps to run on this it would be an Emulator.
There is no need for what is being discussed here but a Swift should make developer lives easier on all platforms.
Actually people should look at XCode and decelop an understanding about how the IOS emulator works. If they understood what is going on in XCode most of this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Although I haven't used it in production code myself the user forums for Devs would indicate that Swift is not really making dev lives easier, at least not yet.
Although I haven't used it in production code myself the user forums for Devs would indicate that Swift is not really making dev lives easier, at least not yet.
That is true but has more to do with the Alpha nature of Swift. I'm left with the impression that Apple underestimated how far they have to go to get Swift solid.
However long term Swift should do a lot of good for developers. It will do much to eliminate whole classes of programming errors that are all to easy to make with C, Objecive C and to an extent C++. It is sorta like C# for the Mac except that Swift produces machine code. By that I mean modern programming concepts are implemented.
Comments
Lower-level languages make portability harder, Swift isn't necessary but as mentioned above, it greatly helps the process.
There are thousands of apps that won't be made compatible overnight. An x86 translator would give much closer to full compatibility.
That comment was about apps that are Windows exclusives, not Mac x86 apps. Windows apps would need more than a recompile.
Lower-level languages make portability harder, Swift isn't necessary but as mentioned above, it greatly helps the process.
There are thousands of apps that won't be made compatible overnight. An x86 translator would give much closer to full compatibility.
That comment was about apps that are Windows exclusives, not Mac x86 apps. Windows apps would need more than a recompile.
In reality most apps running on the Mac are written in Objective C, Open GL or what not. Everything using Apple's API would just be a recompile and lots of C code will also just be a compile.
If they want Windows apps to run on this it would be an Emulator.
There is no need for what is being discussed here but a Swift should make developer lives easier on all platforms.
Actually people should look at XCode and decelop an understanding about how the IOS emulator works. If they understood what is going on in XCode most of this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Although I haven't used it in production code myself the user forums for Devs would indicate that Swift is not really making dev lives easier, at least not yet.
That is true but has more to do with the Alpha nature of Swift. I'm left with the impression that Apple underestimated how far they have to go to get Swift solid.
However long term Swift should do a lot of good for developers. It will do much to eliminate whole classes of programming errors that are all to easy to make with C, Objecive C and to an extent C++. It is sorta like C# for the Mac except that Swift produces machine code. By that I mean modern programming concepts are implemented.
What about the Macbook Pro ? Will it be upgraded and refreshed together with the Macbook Air ?
Thanks
We certainly don't know, but if I recall correctly they've usually been separated, not updated at the same time.