Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Swift is not ready to replace ObjC (Score 1) 270

Swift Blog July 11th 2014 entry.

you can target back to OS X Mavericks or iOS 7 with that same app. This is possible because Xcode embeds a small Swift runtime library within your app’s bundle. Because the library is embedded, your app uses a consistent version of Swift that runs on past, present, and future OS releases.

The embedded part is actually quite small and it's only there because the language is still evolving (and to allow apps to target the previous versions of OS X and iOS). The main reason it is necessary to do it like this is that the Swift ABI is not yet stable. When the ABI stabilises, Apple plans to incorporate the runtime into the OS (where it should be).

Comment Re:On iOS platforms. (Score 1) 270

Apple will likely force you into using Swift for iOS9 compatibility in the next 12 months.

Nope. That is not going to happen unless they don't care about 95% of the apps on the app store not working on iOS 9. It's more likely that they will just not make new APIs available in Objective-C, so that Objective-C apps can't use the latest features.

Comment Re:questions (Score 2) 408

if someone is shooting at car, how does the car react?

As long as it's driveable, it should keep on driving - precisely the opposite of what most people would do.

Really? I'm pretty sure, if somebody started shooting at my car, it would be pedal to the metal until I was sure they were a long way behind me.

Comment Re:Fault may not be the right measure. (Score 1) 408

I was once reading a sailing almanack which had a chapter on who has the right of way in various situations. Sail has priority over steam, starboard tack has priority etc etc. At the end it said

"Even if you have priority, allowing a collision to occur through inaction is bad seamanship".

The same should apply to driving.

Comment Re:It *IS* their fault (Score 1) 408

Yes they should, if there is something about a computer controlled car that makes them more prone to accidents when under human control. Not saying that is the case here, but it could happen.

Bottom line is that these cars had a 1 in 12 chance of being involved in an accident in the last year. That seems high to me but I don't know if it is statistically significant. If we go another year and the stats don't improve, I would suspect there is a fundamental problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...