Ted Kremenek (tweet, Reddit):
Given the importance of getting the core ABI and the related fundamentals correct, we are going to defer the declaration of ABI stability out of Swift 4 while still focusing the majority of effort to get to the point where the ABI can be declared stable.
To allow the community to follow along with this effort, an ABI dashboard will get wired up from the swift-evolution home page that will present a table of main ABI tasks remaining and what Swift release they landed in.
[…]
The Swift 4 compiler will provide a source-compatibility mode to allow existing Swift 3 sources to compile, but source-breaking changes can manifest in “Swift 4” mode. That said, changes to fundamental parts of Swift’s syntax or standard library APIs that breaks source code are better front-loaded into Swift 4 than delayed until later releases. Relative to Swift 3, the bar for such changes is significantly higher[…]
Swift 4 Release Process:
Swift 4 is a major release that is intended to be completed in the fall of 2017. It pivots around providing source stability for Swift 3 code while implementing essential feature work needed to achieve binary stability in the language.
It will contain significant enhancements to the core language and Standard Library, especially in the generics system and a revamp of the String type.
[…]
The intended design is that a project containing multiple Swift modules, such as an Xcode project with multiple Swift targets, will be able to adopt into the specific Swift language mode on a per module (target) level and that they can freely interact within the same compiled binary. Note that this interoperability only exists at the binary level when the targets are compiled with the same compiler.
Postponing ABI stability (again) makes sense, especially given that String is still in flux.
Previously: Chris Lattner ATP Interview, Swift 4 String Manifesto, ABI Stability Deferred Until After Swift 3.0, Looking Back on Swift 3 and Ahead to Swift 4.
Language Design Programming Swift Programming Language
Ole Begemann:
A MutableCollection supports in-place element mutation. The single new API requirement it adds to Collection is that the subscript now must also have a setter.
[…]
MutableCollection allows changing the values of a collection’s elements, but the protocolʼs documentation stipulates that the mutation must neither change the length of the collection nor the order of the elements. Set canʼt satisfy either of these requirements.
[…]
All Dictionary would gain from conforming to MutableCollection and/or RangeReplaceableCollection would be methods that operate on Index values and (Key, Value) pairs, which is probably not compelling enough to invest anything in the conformance even if it were compatible with the typeʼs implementation.
Ole Begemann:
CharacterView does conform to RangeReplaceableCollection but not to MutableCollection. Why? A string is clearly mutable; it seems logical that it should adopt this protocol. Again, we need to consider the protocolʼs semantics.
[…]
However, the Characterʼs size in the underlying storage is not the same for all characters, so replacing a single Character can potentially make it necessary to move the subsequent text forward or backward in memory by a few bytes to make room for the replacement. This would make the simple subscript assignment potentially an O(n) operation, and subscripting is supposed to be O(1).
[…]
The final potential issue for CharacterViewʼs hypothetical MutableCollection conformance is Unicode and the complexities it brings. The existence of combining characters means that replacing a single Character can actually change the stringʼs length (measured in Characters) if the new character combines with its preceding character.
Previously: Swift 4 String Manifesto.
Language Design Programming Swift Programming Language Unicode
Ben Lovejoy (Hacker News):
Apple is fighting ‘right to repair’ legislation which would give consumers and third-party repair shops the legal right to purchase spare parts and access service manuals. The state of Nebraska is holding a hearing on the proposed legislation next month, and Motherboard reports that Apple will be formally opposing the bill.
[…]
Repair.org hopes that getting a single state to pass a right to repair bill will result in manufacturers giving in, citing the precedent of similar legislation in the car industry.
Previously: Error 53.
Apple iOS Legal Mac Unauthorized Repair
Kara Pernice and Raluca Budiu:
Hidden navigation, such as the hamburger menu, is one of the many patterns inspired by mobile designs. Screen space is a precious commodity on mobile. To meet the challenge of prioritizing content while still making navigation (and other chrome) accessible, designers commonly rely on hiding the navigation under a menu — often indicated by the infamous hamburger icon. Like a cheap fast food chain, it got designers addicted to its convenience, and now serves millions each day, both on mobile devices and on desktops.
While our qualitative user testing has repeatedly shown that navigation hidden under a drop-down menu is less discoverable on the desktop, we wanted to measure the size of this effect in a quantitative study and assess the relative impact of hidden navigation on the desktop versus mobile.
Mobiscroll (via Andy Bargh):
Hamburger menus drive engagement down, slow down exploration and confuse people. If you are reading this, it won’t confuse you, but it damn will confuse others who might be happy to consume your content.
[…]
I cannot stress this enough. Always design with real content, otherwise you’ll end up with placeholders, lorem ipsums and hamburger menus inside hamburger menus. Content on its own doesn’t make sense, and layouts without content either.
Previously: Apple on Hamburger Menus, The Hamburger Menu Doesn’t Work, Ex-Microsoft Designer Explains the Move Away From Metro, Hamburgers and Basements.
Design iOS Web
Amazon (via Matt Henderson):
We’re excited to offer the opportunity to publish paperbacks in addition to Kindle eBooks. We’ll be adding even more print-related features in the future, like proof copies, author (wholesale) copies, and expanded distribution to bookstores and non-Amazon websites. CreateSpace still offers these features, and KDP will offer them as well.
Publishing a paperback can help you reach new readers. KDP prints your book on demand and subtracts your printing costs from your royalties, so you don’t have to pay any costs upfront or carry any inventory.
Amazon Books E-books Kindle
Mark Gurman (tweet):
Apple doesn’t disclose how many Apple TVs it sells, but Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri acknowledged in a recent interview that sales decreased year-over-year from the 2015 holiday season to this past 2016 holiday period. The research firm eMarketer says the fourth-generation Apple TV has steadily lost market share since its release in the fall of 2015; in January just 11.9 percent of connected television customers were using it, the research firm says, down from 12.5 percent in September. In part, the slide reflects competition from Amazon and Roku, whose boxes do the same and more for less money.
[…]
Apple had a backup plan if it wasn’t able to replace the existing cable box—the much-ballyhooed “skinny bundle,” a stripped down web service that would let viewers choose channels rather than paying for ones they don’t watch. Apple proposed bundling the four main broadcast networks and a handful of cable channels as well as on-demand TV shows and movies for $30 to $40 a month. The media companies were willing to engage with Apple due to concerns about the rise of online services like Netflix and the cord-cutting phenomenon.
But the two sides stumbled over cost, the composition of the bundles and negotiating tactics. The media companies blamed Apple’s arrogance; Apple blamed the media companies’ inflexibility. In the end, the talks fell apart, leaving Apple to tout stripped-down bundles from Sony PlayStation and DirecTV. After the negotiations foundered, Apple’s hardware team ditched the coaxial port.
Update (2017-02-18): Dan Moren:
It’s tough to figure out what that extra cash buys you, beyond the Apple brand. The previous version of the Apple TV, which was less powerful though still perfectly capable at its primary function of streaming video, cost a more comparable $99. Frankly, though I use the Apple TV every day, I’d be hard-pressed to find $50 more worth of functionality on the new model. (Most of that cost increase is probably attributable to the Siri remote, which I have mostly ditched in favor of a harder-to-lose and more user-friendly Logitech Harmony universal remote.)
[…]
We talk a lot about the “second screen” experience of people sitting in front of the TV: how they’re checking Twitter or looking actors up on IMDb or Wikipedia while watching. But when it comes to apps, it’s not the iPhone or iPad or MacBook that’s the second screen—it’s the Apple TV.
Apple TV
