Where will D sit in the web service space?

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 17:22:14 UTC, Etienne wrote:
> On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 16:57:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 14:50:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
>> wrote:
>>>> ART.  Of course Metal isn't general-purpose, nobody said it 
>>>> is, but I don't see why you'd say Swift isn't.
>>>
>>> Swift is clearly designed around Objective-C and Cocoa.
>>
>> Oh, and I didn't respond to this because I didn't even know 
>> what you meant, think I got it now.  You're now saying Swift 
>> isn't general-purpose simply because it's initially designed 
>> around Apple's Cocoa OS APIs?  Being tied to a single platform 
>> doesn't make a language any less general-purpose, and since 
>> they announced that they're open-sourcing Swift later this 
>> year, it will be ported to other platforms, just as Obj-C has.
>
> Apple has become such a taboo subject. They've invested so much 
> on subconscious gratifications that nobody can discuss the 
> company objectively. I mean, Swift is general purpose because 
> the holy masters of computer culture "want" to open source it, 
> and open source can become general purpose, right? Eh..

No, Swift is already general-purpose because it isn't highly 
optimized for a single purpose or feature and it's a fairly 
low-level native language which could be used to write everything 
from hardware drivers to webapps.  In fact, I now see that Apple 
announced that they will be contributing a linux port when they 
open-source it later this year, so it won't even be tied to 
Apple's platform soon.

As for Apple's "subconscious gratifications," considering I 
bought my first and last Apple product, a Powerbook G4, a decade 
ago and would never buy any of their products since, because of 
their crazy patent stance, that certainly doesn't describe me.  
Ola brought up Swift as some sort of exception to the 
"general-purpose native languages on mobile" trend and I'm simply 
pointing out that's not true.