Nm Ios Gpx Framework 1.0 Dl For Mac

It may be time to try another approach to building the library. Now that you know the additional includes and libraries (just watch the compiler flags as you build), create a new Cocoa Touch Static Library Xcode project and set up the header search path and additional linker flags from what you observed. Jul 03, 2011  1.0 = no attributes. 1.01 = attributes A previous update delivered the equivalent of GPX 1.01 and broke many 3rd party applications. This was rolled back and now with this update you can chose which version depending on your 3rd party app compatibility.

A little backstory - I was working at Apple on the team that helped bring Swift to life. The big roadblock (especially for things like frameworks) is 32-bit support.

There's no 32-bit runtime for Swift. When that requirement is lifted I'm certain we'll see a flood of Apple apps built with Swift. There was (and still is) a huge amount of enthusiasm for the language internally. Many teams were working with it and plenty of internal tools where built with it. So yes, Apple is absolutely using Swift. There's no 32-bit runtime for Swift. When that requirement is lifted.

You probably don't know/can't say, but is there going to be a 32-bit Mac runtime? Apple has spent zero resources improving the 32-bit ObjC runtime over the last decade, to the point where it's called the 'legacy' runtime yet is still supported. I expect a 32-bit Swift runtime would also require a modern ObjC runtime, but it seems rather unlike Apple to spend any resources now on 32-bit Mac (when they've decided not to for the last 9 years). I suspect that WWDC this June will be the beginning of the end for 32-bit Mac apps. Craig Federighi (Apple's SVP of software) discussed this topic on this episode of the talk show a few weeks ago.

IIRC many teams within apple are using swift as much as they can, either for app/framework code, or test code. One example he gave was that the dock in El Capitan had been rewritten in swift. He also mentioned that the lack of 32 bit support for swift was a major pain point blocking more widespread adoption internally due to many frameworks still needing to support 32 bit macs. Reading between the lines, it wouldn't surprise me if 32 bit support is dropped with the next version of OSX to allow more teams with Apple to start using no swift. It might be useful to look at Microsoft and their history with C#.

C# was announced in 2000, the first really useful version C# 2.0 came out in 2005 and even today Microsoft apps written in pure C# are few and far in between (just UIs for visual studio, sql server etc.). So, I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple to transition to Swift doesn't happen for five years or more. There is absolutely no point for Microsoft or Apple to use C# or Swift when 95% of their legacy code is another language like C/C/Objective-C. These guys have so much money they can pay people to hyper specialize in old technologies, I'm sure MS has some guys who work exclusively in COM/C or Apple with some guys who work exclusively in C89/BSD. Having said that, pretty much everyone developing for the Microsoft ecosystem (native) uses C#. That has been true for almost a decade now.

I suspect the same will happen with Swift and Apple and rather rapidly because the Apple ecosystem doesn't have enterprise customers holding it back. Most of people commenting here seem to already know Objective-C. However, consider someone new to the platform. Would you spend 1 year learning iOS programming using Obj-C or learn it via Swift? Apart from Swift being a nicer language to learn, the reality is almost all tutorials/books etc have shifted to Swift.

Good luck to the poor sap learning iOS programming via iOS 6 tutorials and Obj-C and migrating to iOS 9. I think the Swift 1.0 to 2.0 journey was quite painful, pretty surprised that Apple made so many breaking changes with poor tools support, but I feel 2.0 is where it feels just about solid to build all new apps. Sure there will be changes, I mean Obj-C had ARC and blocks twenty years later! But that's the nature of software nowadays. I think the difference here is that C# (and the.NET platform) was never meant to completely replace C/C Win32 development; it was a higher-level solution for a certain class of Windows applications.

I might be wrong, but I thought Swift was designed as an eventual replacement for Objective-C (with its seamless interoperability, and the fact that it uses the same runtime as Objective-C, it doesn't seem that far-fetched). If it is meant to be Objective-C's successor, then Apple should really be preaching by example at this point. I think the difference here is that C# (and the.NET platform) was never meant to completely replace C/C Win32 development Oh no, it was meant to replace them. Win32 was going to be deprecated, all new stuff would be on native.NET APIs, there'd be a Windows Presentation Foundation and a Windows Filesystem and it'd all be great. The thing is that Longhorn fell apart, and with it the dream of replacing Win32 died forever. Now we have WinRT, but unlike the plans for Longhorn, WinRT actually sits on top of Win32. They provide tools to port.

So I think it depends more on how large your app is. For a small app running the tool and making a few misc fixes will probably be fairly easy. At least if it is like the 1.0 - 2.0 change. For larger apps, well, I have a Swift app that isn't really very big, probably still small but significantly bigger than a tutorial, and it keeps freezing Xcode.

(Edit something in Interface Builder, switch to the ViewController class with IBOutlets in it, then switch back and forth between ViewControllers making edits. Each time it takes longer and longer until I just force-quit Xcode to avoid twiddling my thumbs for 5 minutes.) So I don't think Swift is ready for any app that isn't pretty small anyway. It's pretty naive to think that Apple would somehow direct all their work towards re-writing existing code into Swift. There is literally no use case to do that wholesale. Firstly, there is no question that it would generate bugs. Appkit and even iOS is old enough that you couldn't replace it completely without the behaviour changing.

Even if it's fixing a weird behaviour, that would be a problem for many existing apps build on that framework. Second of all, it would mean they wouldn't be moving forward with new features, which, basically nobody (customers even) wants.

I'm sure more and more new code will be Swift, and possibly non-framework apps can be re-written. But they won't start announcing a swap out in the next WWDC. It is hard and costly to rewrite an app, even for Apple. In this case it means learning new skills (or hiring new devs).


This is huge and will probably take years to be adopted. They could also force it at some point by releasing new APIs with only Swift support. It's worrying for Swift.

If it really adds value compared to Objective-c then why is Apple so slow on jumping on the bandwagon? They need to show the way. Other companies usually talk with their fans through dev blog posts but Apple secrecy tradition and very tightly controlled communication does not help. I think the gain is mostly that Swift allows you write code which more resistant to bugs than its ObjC counterpart would be. In Yaron Minsky's 'Effective ML' talk, he mentions the idea of 'Make illegal states unrepresentable': The combination of enums and non-optional variables allows you to get much closer to this ideal than you could with ObjC. A great place to start would be the Functional Swift talks from 2014 and 2015: If you want to challenge yourself, try reading through the RxSwift codebase. When I interviewed at Apple I talked about Objective-C vs Swift with multiple developers.

Most seemed to indicate that due to the millions of lines of code already written in Objective-C that they, at least personally, were highly unlikely to rewrite them in Swift because it currently works and it's not worth the change over from a product standpoint. In fact a couple of time seemed hesitant that Swift was the future when I talked to them about it. I understand not wanting to rewrite millions of lines of code but I feel like they should at least want to make a slow transition of at least many of their apps to Swift (since it can bind with Objective-C it's not like it has to be done all at once; it could be something where they spend a small percentage of time doing off and on). After my interview though I got the impression, at least from the developers I talked to, that they will probably never use Swift unless they have to. Edit: I would like to point out, in case it's not obvious, that my case is purely anecdotal. Reading responses here and searching around Google is seems many inside Apple are excited about it which could very well be more than the people not excited about it.

Still, I'd like to see some more platform support as it appears small at least to me looking from the outside. For reference, it would be prudent to review the swift-evolution Github repo:. Swift 3.0 goals1 - 3.0 is scheduled for late 2016 and it will bring a wealth of ABI and language stability improvements, and significant documentation improvements.

Commonly rejected changes2 - significant whitespace, 'and' keyword vs && (et al), closure literals, and semicolon removal are not on the table and that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon Swift is great and all but it will probably not reach critical mass until 2018. Federighi and his team are seasoned vets in building and delivering software to millions. They aren't naive and know they need to balance end-user benefit with engineering's wishes for maintainability etc. Is the user going to see a vast difference in experience if they re-wrote the Settings.app? Swift is a language, not framework, so it doesn't offer the end-user anything worth caring about. Swift will probably cost them more than it gains them in the immediate term, but the long-term is what Apple is all about, so I don't think they are concerned about this. Slightly related: like many Android engineers, I fell in love with Kotlin.

It is a very pragmatic language which solves many big issues with java 6.5 we use on mobile. However, getting it adopted in a big project with a dozen of engineers of various levels and a massive 300k LOC repo is a daunting task. Even though it is a undoubtedly a better language, making such a switch is too frightening for the lead dev. Of course, Kotlin has the additional disadvantage of not being officially sponsored by Google on Android. 'we do just fine with java' Yeah, except they write 2-5 times more code in Java, than they would in Kotlin.

I think it's unprofessional to reject a new language, that will make code smaller and easier to understand, just because somebody is afraid to step out of his comfort zone for a moment, and not because of some potential real problems. I think you can justify anything with that stupid line of thinking: 'I don't use for-loops, because a while-loop can do the same, and it's too hard for me to learn it.' Sounds the same to me. Learning Kotlin is a must for any Android developer, unless he really likes to give handjobs to the Java compiler: 'Oh, let my type the name of the type twice, even if it's quite long for clarity and you know it already from the right hand of the assignment.

You want me to write 23 lines of boilerplate in a separate file for a POJO with 2 fields? Oh, you dirty boy!'

I don't use for-loops, because a while-loop can do the same, and it's too hard for me to learn. Older engineer.

He remembers the transition from blackberry to Android and is not ready for another one. He almost advocates for the use of Vectors. Unfortunately he is also Lead Engineer, which makes matters complicated.


Kotlin is far from the only subject where we butt heads. I also had to put his nose on all the leaks created by his atrocious 'architecture' in order to start working on a fix. I don't think there is a good solution for that kind of problems other than throwing the towel and move to another company.

I plan to emigrate anyway, so there is that. There are true reasons to avoid Kotlin at the moment though: -slower compilation (we have a huge codebase and dexing is already an issue).the whole team needs to move to it and since we are more than a dozen, it is a significant task.Kotlin does not support Android Lint, so common issues like using an API 21 method with minApiLvl = 17 can occur unnoticed. I would not be surprised if the percentage of Apple's code that is in Swift is more or less the same percentage of Google's code using Golang (with Golang having a slight advantage maturity wise). I'm sure Dart is even less.

Of course this is just anecdotal from talking with a few people from Google so I'm probably off. That being said C has a huge advantage in that it keeps improving where as Objective C from my ignorant understanding has little plans of being improved (google has a large C codebase). I would not be surprised if the percentage of Apple's code that is in Swift is more or less the same percentage of Google's code using Golang (with Golang having a slight advantage maturity wise). That could be true, but what it's being used for is perhaps more important than the percentage. Not to underestimate the importance of a calculator, but it is known that Google uses Go in: - dl.google.com - Kubernetes - Youtube's MySQL scaling infrastructure (Vitess) - Google's mobile data compression proxy (Flywheel) Of course, Go's first stable release was in 2012, so Swift still has some time to catch up;). Shows dedication to the platform.

You generally want to show dedication to a platform with sane means. Not by writing multi-million line codebases, and creating new bugs, cut-down features and delays in the process (a la FCPX, which was in the same language as 7, but still a total rewrite).

If Apple had significant investment in Swift apps, they would not be making breaking changes so lightly. And the language wouldn't have fixed its early mistakes and matured.

Which is what they did with 2.0 and plan to do with 3.0 - at which point they promise stability. In general you want to stop making incompatible changes when you have finalized a good design and fixed all the major pain points from the early releases that the community brought forward. I've been writing Swift since day 0 of its announcement - the migration issues aren't that big of a deal even for 10k lines of code, especially if you did it at each step. Sure it isn't fun, but everyone knew it was a early/beta language. After 3.x, their won't be huge breaking changes thankfully. Personally, only issue that bugged me was slower compilation time.

Nm Ios Gpx Framework 1.0 Dl For Mac

About significant investment, this is just how Apple is. They don't stop the train for anyone, it's get on or off. Same goes for SDK you compile against, certain features you must bake in etc. Objective-C is 33 years old, I don't know for sure but I bet it wasn't that stable at the start!

Applications are rarely released in explicit versions (from the user side, publicity wise, sure there is a version number in the version control process, but what percentage of Gmail users do you think know what version they are using). If Apple has an application that is successful then they will continue to iterate that code base. If Apple truly is of the opinion that Swift is the language of the future, one would expect them to utilize it going forward. In order to utilize it going forward they'd need to rewrite some of the code base when they fix bugs and change functionality or aesthetics. The remaining code base can be left alone so long as they are confident they can get the resource to work with it if needed in the future.

So really, what Apple is saying is, it's still easy enough to get someone to work on Objective-C should an issue arise. When that talent pool dwindles, at that point Apple will need to look at the cost/benefit of rewriting large code bases again. That is all assuming Apple has commited to moving to Swift and away from Objective-C, which I doubt is the state of affairs just yet. The choice to use Swift comes with some tradeoffs, and it appears that Apple has decided it’s generally not worth it for their apps or frameworks yet.

Really, that's your take-away? However, there could be a very different story building for iOS 10. Since most of iOS is only dropped once per year, we’ll just have to wait and see in June. You almost get it. Apple needs time to make the change (and they'll most likely never completely change over to all Swift) for most of the apps they decide to change.

They want a nice fluid experience for their customers. Product cycles aren't short, iOS/OS X are at once per year, but that doesn't mean that some changes to them aren't planned out for much longer than a year. I think majority of these articles are being written by developers who always assumed that Apple would never move away from Objective C. By introducing Swift Apple has now directly threatened their unique skill set.

In my opinion Apple recognized the threat from React Native / Cordova / RoboVM and had long term vision to introduce a new programming language that would allow Python/C/Java developers to easily develop for iOS. If you are interested in getting into Swift programming, don't let these article fool you into getting discouraged. This article is simply spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

I don't think Apple ever intended to phase out Objective-C in favor of Swift. Swift is just another option for developers, in the same way that C# is an easier option for Windows developers. Objective-C, just like its predecessor C, can be used in a huge array of environments, ranging from servers to clients and everything in between. It would be impractical and close to impossible to support Swift in all these environments. As a result, Apple is much better served by code written in Objective-C, especially in areas such as the operating system and closely related system code. The title is one of those Betteridge's Law ones ('Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.' ), where a story that doesn't give the answer the author wants or is inconclusive has a title framed as a question.

But in this case, it's one where the answer is 'Yes', not 'No', because usually a Betteridge's Law title asks if an unlikely proposition is true, rather than if a likely proposition is false. Of course Apple are using Swift, but they're not going to rewrite everything in it overnight. Heck, they probably aren't ever going to rewrite. Swift will only be used for new stuff.

Posted :