[greensamuelm]

The real point that I think this article misses is framework development. Swift still has not achieved ABI compatibility. If you are using an iOS device, very likely framework code I have written in the past few years is running inside one of the many apps you have installed.

This is simply not feasible to do unless you are willing to open source your code base. I have been shipping closed source binary frameworks written in Objective-C for seven years. None of the companies I work for are willing to maintain binary releases for each version of Swift AND Xcode. It's simply too much.

I'd love to use Swift, but at this point it would only be a maintenance nightmare for my team and I to maintain.

[gok]

I find it interesting how much flack Swift takes for not having a stable ABI. Many contemporary but older languages (Go, Rust) haven't even attempted it. Go binaries aren't even really safe to use across macOS releases, since they get hardcoded to make syscalls directly.

[steveklabnik]

Rust takes a lot of flak for it as well, some to the point of suggesting it's illegitimate until it has one.

[slrz]

Just ship the source code, the experience is going to be so much better, no matter the language. Programming against binary-only libraries is a PITA.

If you don't want to open source your code, at least give it to your paying customers under a proprietary no-redistribution license.

[grav]

How's the story with source code obfuscation in Swift-land? Wouldn't that be an option for you?

[melloclello]

A pox on people that make me add closed source binaries to my apps! Adtech companies are the worst for this.