Skip is now free and open source

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Licensing and Legal Concerns

  • Initial confusion because the main skip repo lacked a LICENSE file; this was quickly corrected by adding LGPLv3.
  • Some worry about how LGPL interacts with iOS static linking; clarified that:
    • Skip is primarily a build tool, not a runtime shipped in the app, so typical LGPL redistribution concerns don’t apply.
    • The license adds a specific exception exempting sections 4d/4e (relinking, installation info) for combined works.
  • Debate over LGPL vs permissive licenses: some think LGPL may dampen adoption; others see it as reasonable protection, especially compared to AGPL.

Architecture, Platforms, Accessibility

  • Skip uses native UI toolkits on both platforms: SwiftUI on iOS, Jetpack Compose on Android.
  • This yields native accessibility: VoiceOver on iOS and TalkBack on Android, which several commenters see as a major advantage over canvas-based frameworks.
  • Desire expressed for SwiftUI-like cross‑platform UI on Windows; Skip currently targets mobile only.
  • macOS support is assumed to follow from SwiftUI but not discussed in depth; details about complex UIs (maps, overlays, camera, notifications) are unclear from the thread.

Performance, Tooling, and Hardware Requirements

  • Skip claims no managed runtime overhead; apps should be as efficient as native Swift/Kotlin.
  • The 32GB RAM “recommendation” triggers criticism; explanation is that you’re running Xcode + iOS simulators plus Android toolchain/emulators in parallel.
  • You can run only one platform at a time, but Skip encourages simultaneous iteration to keep platforms in sync.

Comparison with Flutter, React Native, KMP, etc.

  • Skip vs Kotlin Multiplatform (KMP):
    • KMP shares Kotlin business logic; Skip shares Swift logic.
    • UI: Skip maps SwiftUI → Jetpack Compose with native widgets on both; KMP’s sibling Compose Multiplatform renders a custom UI on iOS (Flutter‑like), which some call “uncanny valley”.
  • Many comments criticize Flutter for: non‑native look, difficulty tracking new iOS design (e.g., Liquid Glass), accessibility issues, and “game-engine style” rendering. Others counter with successful large Flutter deployments and argue Flutter remains strong.
  • Some skepticism that any cross‑platform solution can scale for very large apps; others cite high‑traffic Flutter and React Native apps as counterexamples.

Open Source Strategy and Sustainability

  • The team explains they open‑sourced because dev tools almost must be free to gain adoption; proprietary subscription pricing was a barrier and created durability fears.
  • Thread branches into a broad debate:
    • Ideological free software vs pragmatic open source vs source‑available.
    • Developers’ reluctance to pay for tools, and how that interacts with FAANG‑funded tooling and OSS sustainability.
    • Strong preference for open source tooling to avoid rug‑pulls, license changes, and platform abandonment.
  • Some wonder how Skip will survive financially; guesses include enterprise support, training, and commercial add‑ons.