Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:15:47 +0000 From: =?utf-8?Q?Pivot=20Point?= <team@pivotpointresearch.com> To: =?utf-8?Q??= <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Pivotal=20Perspectives=20Newsletter=2D=20September=202104?= Message-ID: <ca43e8b1f0e9c72628074f77581b96126c3.20140825181536@mail220.atl101.mcdlv.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
View this email in your browser (http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=3Dca4= 3e8b1f0e9c72628074f775&id=3Dfb5376aa54&e=3D81b96126c3) ** Pivotal Perspectives on- Swift ------------------------------------------------------------ ** Developer Michael Demetriou wanted to hear other developer's perspectives= on Swift=2C the new programming language from Apple. Michael wanted to= know "Do we need yet another programming language?" ------------------------------------------------------------ The answer? Most of you said no! Comments: Yes: I think apple is on the right path. A new=2C improved=2C more "modern" pro= gramming language was much needed. For me Swift is the reason to start iOS development Swift is what modern C++14 could be with the ugly bits cut off and the dan= gerous C backwards-compatibility removed. I think apple is on the right path. A new=2C improved=2C more "modern" pro= gramming language was much needed. No: The part of not having to add brackets around conditions within if=2C whil= e=2C for and switch controls makes me feel uncomfortable to program in. Typical Apple hype=2C you can't trust their statements about performance While it's great that Apple realizes people aren't happy with the oddball= specialty language Objective C=2C creating yet another oddball specialty= language is not the right answer. How does Swift compare to Objective C? A lot more dynamic and just the change we need to continue the world of iO= S development More ideas taken from modern scripting and functional languages compared t= o objective c which didn't advance much further than c/c++ This programming language like Objective C=2C but easier. This programming= language like scripting language. Way better than objc. The syntax is great and modern. it combines almost a= ll the best things from other existing languages. It is less consistent and semantically buggy. Just based to the free ebook. It is more like Ruby than OBJC. Yes its nota= tion is pretty short=2C but there is nothing wrong with readable OBJC nota= tion. Quite different. Muti-paradigm (generics=2C OOP=2C functional). Compiler-t= ime checking=2C type inference=2C tuples... A modern language at last! I l= ove ObjC but also wanted to learn a new language Better=2C very different but still inspired by objective c. A lot of rules= to keep things clean=2C sometimes seem arbitrary. Very feature rich but c= ompletely different feel. Still learning Better readability. Code is much easier to understand It is big difference is its dynamic way of not taking care of the memory. Swift is dramatically safer both from offering type-safety and better func= tional programming. It has the potential to be a much faster language. It is simpler. It reduces the amount of files. But also makes you lazy wit= h parentheses and semicolons which is problematic when switching to anothe= r language (platform). Terse. Optional types are a big plus. Some changes seem to reduce the numb= er of keystrokes at the risk of introducing confusion=2C i.e. break; now i= mplied in switch statements. The big risk is that Apple can't deliver. Alr= eady in the Xcode beta process we have seen Swift changed=2C Introducing t= his at WWDC was probably premature and should have been kept until the lan= guage spec was nailed down. I know lots of developers who are interested i= n Swift but who would laugh at the idea of doing real work in it. And nobo= dy I know thinks Apple can make it a serious mainstream language in under= six months. Here is Chris Gibbs from Apple talking about the value of role of Swift. (= click on the image to play the youtube video clip) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVv2zJErQt84 Thank you for participating in the Pivotal Perspectives Panel program. We= hold a drawing for $100 USD each month among the developers who participa= te. Congratulations to our recent drawing winners and good luck to all of= you in the next drawing! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Copyright =C2=A9 2014 Pivot Point Research Group=2C All rights reserved. You registered for the Pivotal Perspectives program Our mailing address is: Pivot Point Research Group 40 Lake Bellevue Drive Suite 100 Bellevue=2C WA 98005 USA ** unsubscribe from this list (http://pivotpointresearch.us8.list-manage.c= om/unsubscribe?u=3Dca43e8b1f0e9c72628074f775&id=3D43183e145a&e=3D81b96126c3&= c=3Dfb5376aa54) ** update subscription preferences (http://pivotpointresearch.us8.list-man= age.com/profile?u=3Dca43e8b1f0e9c72628074f775&id=3D43183e145a&e=3D81b96126c3= ) From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 18:41:57 2014 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Delivered-To: questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D2A6D2E for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2876E3D41 for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7PIfsxg013254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:41:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id s7PIfsKf013251 for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:41:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:41:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: updating ezjails with freebsd-update Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1408251140120.91639@wonkity.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:41:55 -0600 (MDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:41:57 -0000 (Pardon the thread breakage, I did not receive the original and am quoting from https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2014-August/260485.html) Fbsd8 fbsd8 at a1poweruser.com wrote: > Warren Block wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, doug at safeport.com wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, Fbsd8 wrote: >>> >>>> You can disregard most of that new handbook jail ezjail section. >> >> Thanks for your input. I can assure you that the document was >> reviewed by members of the freebsd-doc mailing list, on IRC, and in >> private email. Mistakes and omissions were found and corrected. >> It's not perfect, but serves the purpose of an overview of using >> ezjail. It also serves a second purpose, showing how to set up >> bind99 in a jail. This quick overview of a jailed BIND is useful for >> those wishing to improve BIND security now that the old chroot option >> is not available in the port. > I emailed you off list about the items voiced here and as the > resulting handbook shows you still went ahead and published it anyway > with all the mis-leading information included. Sorry, I did not receive that message due to a years-old killfile entry labeled "proud top-poster". It's the same reason I do not see your posts to the mailing lists unless someone else quotes them. As far as a qjail document, I do not use qjail and generally have found it to be a mistake to work on documents I cannot test directly. I suggested a search on the relationship between ezjail and qjail to show that your involvement with qjail might bias your suggestions. That involvement was not mentioned in the response I saw. If I missed it, I apologize. For completeness, I have not been involved in the development of ezjail or any other jail utility. I recently suggested some minor changes and additions to ezjail, although none of those changes have been included yet.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ca43e8b1f0e9c72628074f77581b96126c3.20140825181536>