[wrg]

This also. It seems purely like a calculated move to undermine iOS as much as possible, but it does make you wonder if it's the Right Thing to do. There are better languages out there that have had much more development take place. And it's not like Google have commit rights or control over Swift. It's sad how they haven't really learned from the Oracle case.

[thevibesman]

> It seems purely like a calculated move to undermine iOS as much as possible

I really don't see how this is the case; do you consider Microsoft's Project Islandwood[1] to be a move to undermine iOS? Both seem like an attempt to offer developers more choice and a reason to work on the platform. If this is to undermine anything, I think it would be the various 'hybrid'-webapp solutions as writing a Swift app seems like a better way to "write once, run anywhere" than a JavaScript hybrid solution.

> And it's not like Google have commit rights or control over Swift. It's sad how they haven't really learned from the Oracle case.

I don't see how not having commit rights is an issue. The licensing terms of Java are/were very different from Swift. Getting behind an Apache-licensed open-source language does not necessarily mean Google is not free to control their own version of the language (why would they?). I don't see the copyrightable API issue coming up with Apple and Swift because of how the open source Foundation has been encouraged (and I really think Apple wouldn't mind / will encourage open-source ports of other Frameworks).

[1]: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bridges/ios

[Grazester]

You make it sound like this is a sure thing. I have serious doubt that it will happen.

...cant we have Go instead Google?

[hga]

It seems purely like a calculated move to undermine iOS as much as possible

What's your theory behind that?

The only one I can think of is that if they make it easy to write an app for both, and Apple does not accept the app or an update, you haven't suffered a complete loss.