The comparison with Rust's period of instability is very mistaken. Before 1.0 we were emphatic in telling you that you should not use Rust in a production capacity. The rust-lang.org homepage loudly proclaimed that the implementation was a prototype that would "eat your laundry". Coming into the IRC channels, anyone asking whether Rust was production-ready would be told that it wasn't, and we suggested alternative languages for those needing stability. In contrast, you don't see anyone calling Swift an experimental prototype despite it being as trigger-happy with breaking changes as ancient Rust. I take issue with the messaging that Apple has used to describe Swift's level of stability; just saying "we warned you there were going to be breaking changes :shrug:" drips with contempt. Just because one has given oneself license to break something does not mean that one should exercise that right wantonly.
I do think the Swift developers are getting better about that, fortunately, but a lot of developer goodwill has been burned in the meantime.
> the rust-lang.org homepage loudly proclaimed that the implementation was a prototype
I get what you're saying, but a 'prototype' is perhaps a bit far. Rust was far from being called a prototype years before being declared stable, however I do agree that branding Swift 1.0 in 2014 was a mistake.
Personal theory is that if you want to release something at Apple to the public, and Chris wanted to get feedback, you have to brand it 1.0
> just saying "we warned you there were going to be breaking changes :shrug:" drips with contempt
Ouch, that's going a bit too far, Chris Lattner definitely doesn't strike me as someone who has contempt for developers. He gave us LLVM, (which BTW Rust uses as its backend) and by all signs he worked very hard in the background to get Swift open-sourced. Now they're taking a lot of feedback from the community via their Swift Evolution process and the Swift community wants the language to continue to evolve, so it does, not sure what could've they done better in this regard.
Yes indeed, I don't blame Chris for any of this. Given his pedigree with LLVM, I'd believe that if he had his way Swift would have been open and available for comment from day one. I squarely blame Apple's management, a misapplied corporate culture of extreme secrecy, and an executive allergy to the word "beta" for the issues that I perceive. I apologize if it seemed that I was blaming the Swift developers themselves or denigrating their abilities.
I do think the Swift developers are getting better about that, fortunately, but a lot of developer goodwill has been burned in the meantime.