Unavailability on macOS

You may be able to install, or at least build, a new Swift toolchain even if you can't upgrade Xcode. Xcode sometimes has dependencies on the exact host OS, e.g. because of changes to debuggers or simulators, but that shouldn't affect the basic Swift toolchain.

Yes, all things that need an OS version greater than macOS 10.13.6 or a machine later than 5,1, Mac Pro patched up from 4,1 Early 2009

Or a version of Xcode greater than v10.1.

I was not trying to indicate that it was difficult to build on Linux or Windows. On the contrary, I think you've done a great job, it's just that I don't use Windows or Linux, so, you seemed to be the ultimate source using Windows, at this point in time, in case the OP had questions (probably not necessary since it's come out he's using an old Mac)

Ultimately I think the solution here is to enable the OSS Swift for building on macOS without bridging to Obj-C. It would use OSS Foundation and the other libraries and wouldn't be able to use any other frameworks, but would otherwise be useful for Swift development. Has anyone tried this?

2 Likes

Sorry, I didn't mean that as an attack, just that it was rather well timed that I had just attempted to do something to simplify things :slight_smile:

Hey @Jon_Shier,

Actually! Yeah, that is something that I had setup a while ago, but never finished up :frowning_face: I think that the biggest thing that remains (which is a pain for me) is the construction of the preset. We would need to revisit the test suite, but without a CI build for macOS -ObjC interop, I think, would result in constant breakage. The test suite would need to be revisited, as a number of tests need adjustment to indicate that they are dependent on the ObjC nature of the runtime or are dependent on the Darwin host. I should try to dig up the patches for that.

Swift may require a minimum OS version. I have only been saying that it's not tied to Xcode.

No. I’m afraid not. macOS 10.13.6 is the limiting factor. I believe that I can download v10.1 but have not since it cannot create apps for 10.13.6. Again, if I recall correctly, apps created by it will only run on later OSs. I suspect that some fundamental code like the runtime support has evolved away from the older High Sierra. Some people don’t seem to understand that Swift, unlike any other language I have used in 40 years of programming, is strongly tied to the development environment on macOS.
The Swift.org site say nothing later than 4.2, I believe will install on machine stuck on v9.x of Xcode. The comments of people that have tried to install later versions as one individual insists should work without offering any specifics, have been able to install a later swift version but not use it.
I don’t care that the macOS GUI is not portable, as others have suggested is the issue. All I want to do is be able to code even command line apps so that I can learn the latest Swift with standard library.
I personally believe that there never will be a portable version of the Mac GUI as this has been a tremendous investment by Apple and to allow Linux and alternative hardware systems to have that investment takes away from Macintosh sales. One of the business model’s problems when you sell tightly integrated hardware and OS.
I believe that Swift has grown in complexity, and continues to such that it is one of the harder languages to fully master. I just would like to learn Swift 5.x and beyond on a Mac system before the Mac merges into an iOS/macOS hybrid OS machine. I don’t see a plethora of macOS Swift-based application examples floating around for non-Apple certified developers. But that’s another story.
I have a Mac Pro 5,1 with a non-Metal capable graphics card and there is no possibility of replacing it with a new Mac Pro as I am disabled now living on SSD. :roll_eyes: Any help would be appreciated greatly.
I can use my old Apple Developer login to get access to the bare minimum offered at developer.apple.com but of course all the things I know of that I would like are for paid up developers. Things like code examples, various tools, useful tutorials, etc. are denied as when I did have the membership. It was sad to see others wanting to learn but only being fed out of date samples and only the minimum documentation. Now I’m one of those people.

I don't think that's true (maybe it was once, but not any more). To quote the membership site:

If you’re new to development on Apple Platforms, you can get started with our tools and resources for free. If you’re ready to build more advanced capabilities and distribute your apps on the App Store, enroll in the Apple Developer Program. The cost is 99 USD per membership year.

The paid program only includes beta OSes (Xcode betas are free), provisioning for server-related stuff (associated domains, push notifications, etc), and AppStore distribution. You can even run apps on your personal devices now without a paid membership. AFAIK there is no paid-only documentation, code samples, or other generally-useful tools. Apple's not in the business of making it harder for you to create Apps for their platforms when they can help it.

I sympathise with your situation, but everybody seems to believe that it is possible to build the latest toolchain on your machine (at least the standard library - Foundation might be trickier). I would suggest that you look in to that - it's more work, but that's often the case when backporting to hardware and software that is officially obsolete (regardless if it should be obsolete or not).

1 Like

You might stop to think why Apple charges at all for development material. I’ve been a Mac programmer since the Macintosh OS came on a diskette that booted the Lisa. Apple has always charged money for access to development information. For the original Mac, it came in several large boxes that fit into a library of ring binders. No one but developers even was able to get a copy of the Unix-like editor. As I recall this along with the updates issued on cds cost several hundred dollars.
Now, since “everybody” says that the standard library can be installed despite the explicit statement to the contrary where the software is located, it should be a simple matter for everybody to tell the steps involved. Until I see that, I will take the site’s and a couple of people that actually tried and failed as truth.
All I ask is how to do it. Step by step. Thank you for at least responding as the people with the direct knowledge don’t seem to see the non-portability statement as important enough to address.

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Cookie Policy