Redesigned Swift.org is now live

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Website redesign, docs, and UX

  • Many like the new visual design, gradients, and use of the bird motif as a scrolling separator; some think it’s “actually cool.”
  • Others criticize usability: missing or hard‑to‑find search, oversized footer, and first‑page examples that lack explanation.
  • Several compare language sites: Swift.org now feels closer to the increasingly complex Go/TypeScript sites; Lua’s and Python’s documentation are praised for clarity and simplicity.

Swift on the server and backend

  • People ask about using Swift (especially Vapor) for web backends; one sees benchmark results where Vapor ranks poorly vs Go, C#, C++, PHP/Laravel.
  • Some attribute this to project maturity and optimization effort rather than language speed; others call the benchmarks “probably bad” and point to Apple’s blog about successful Java→Swift/Vapor migrations.
  • Practitioners report good runtime performance in real projects, with compile times and smaller ecosystem as bigger pain points.

Apple, governance, and community trust

  • Strong resentment toward Apple’s treatment of developers and Swift’s original leadership is voiced; a linked forum incident is seen as reflecting badly on project stewardship.
  • Others argue Google and other vendors aren’t obviously better, though this is disputed with examples of friendlier ecosystems (Go, Dart, Android vs iOS).
  • There’s broad agreement that Swift’s reputation is heavily shaped—positively or negatively—by its origin at Apple.

Language design, complexity, and technical traits

  • Some view Swift as an excellent “sweet spot”: fast, memory‑safe, OO‑friendly, easier than Rust.
  • Critics say it has accreted C++‑like complexity, frequent breaking changes, slow type checking, and convoluted concurrency/actors, with ABI stability arriving relatively late.
  • ARC vs GC is debated: ARC can reduce memory footprint but introduces reference cycles; several say tools like Instruments make leaks manageable, though they’re Apple‑only.

Cross‑platform usage, tooling, and ecosystem

  • Many struggle to see compelling non‑Apple use cases due to weaker libraries and tools; others highlight Swift on Linux/Windows, server, embedded, and GTK, with Qt bindings emerging.
  • Some want better non‑Xcode tooling; others note there is already an LSP, formatter, and usable setups in Emacs, VS Code, and Nova.
  • A prominent marketing line claiming Swift is the “only language” that scales from embedded to cloud is widely criticized as inaccurate, with GitHub issues filed.

Embedded Swift and batteries‑included aspirations

  • The homepage’s emphasis on “Embedded” intrigues people; Apple’s Secure Enclave use is cited, but some say that’s not strong evidence of general embedded viability.
  • Several wish for more batteries‑included server/infra support (e.g., a solid standard HTTP server, more extensive stdlib), similar to Go, even if not everyone agrees on large stdlibs.