How Swift Achieved Dynamic Linking Where Rust Couldn't
Report a link problem
Submission timeline
2007–2026One slot for every year since HN launched. Height is that year's peak points; orange marks a 100+ point or 50+ comment breakout. Select a bar to open its strongest thread.
First comments on top threads
HN comment orderFrom the article: "... Swift's Stabilized ABIs on Apple platforms ... are not actually properly documented, xcode just implements it and the devs will do their best not to break it. Apple is not opposed to documenting it, it's just a lot of work and shipping was understandably higher-priority." Having worked in Apple's Developer Publications department for eleven years, I can confirm that this statement is mostly correct. Apple has the financial resources to hire more technical writers and properly…
The experience from a few years ago: "Then we hit a wall with the dynamic linker. At the time you could only link Swift libraries dynamically. Unfortunately the linker executed in polynomial time so Apple’s recommend maximum number of libraries in a single binary was 6. We had 92 and counting. As a result It took 8-12 seconds after tapping the app icon before main was even called. Our shinny new app was slower than the old clunky one. Then…
The first top-level comment from each of the four biggest threads, in HN’s own order. Excerpts are shortened; open a comment for full context.
- Breakout years
- 2
- Total points
- 480
- Total comments
- 253
100+ points or 50+ comments
reference only — not used in Hall rules or ranking
reference only — not used in Hall rules or ranking
Every submission
| Date | Title as submitted | By | Points | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-09 | How Swift Achieved Dynamic Linking Where Rust Couldn'tFirst breakout · Best thread | gok | 306 | 170 |
| 2021-02-20 | How Swift achieved dynamic linking where Rust couldn't (2019)Latest 20+ point return | zdw | 162 | 83 |
| 2022-07-19 | How Swift Achieved Dynamic Linking Where Rust Couldn't (2019) | pabs3 | 12 | 0 |