winget-pkgs VS swift-evolution

7.0 is now available: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/pull/147886

The winget community repo is open source: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/tree/master/manifes...

Take dropbox as an example. This is what the yaml manifest looks like for that if you install it through winget. It literally has a hardcoded link to an .exe installer hosted by dropbox and then just set the flags to silent. I am not spreading misinformation, you are.

I never used winget, but probably: - https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/issues/107858 - https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy/issues/4027

It's probably not on the Store, winget pulls from both the Store and a community collection of manifests on GitHub: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs

I think that's part of the problem, if you don't have that package manager to bootstrap your signature key ring, DNS is your next best bootstrap. It is, of course, a terrible bootstrap for trust, but it is one so many users on Windows have been relying on for such a long time.

For power users on any modern Windows 10/Windows 11 there is at least WinGet now. Its manifests repo is becoming a very interesting (open) source of truth for common Windows applications. Admittedly, it in most cases doesn't seem to be checking specific code signatures in most cases either, but at least includes SHA checksums.

For instance, 7zip's manifests: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/tree/master/manifes...

It's too bad there's still not a great option for "average user that doesn't know/trust how to use a CLI", given how sadly polluted the Microsoft Store can be for many common, especially Open Source, applications. For direct instance, because winget kindly includes Microsoft Store results when searching, there is a "7zip 22" in the Microsoft Store that costs some amount of money (winget details say "PaidUnknownPrice" for the pricing information; I'm on a corporate machine right now with the actual Store access locked so can't search in the actual Store right now) and the Publisher is listed as RepackagerExpress.com. (That website currently doesn't go anywhere, giving it a spot check.)

Having seen this, I may boot up my personal machine and try to report this specific Store listing for violating the Store's Open Source policies, though I'm unsure if such whackamole is all that useful. (Seems like it might be a useful winget feature request for it to provide Store Report URLs.)

I would like to create a local winget source where I add manifests that my company accepts. To begin with it should only include jdk 8 from eclipse adoptium temurin. https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/blob/master/manifests/e/EclipseAdoptium/Temurin/8/JDK/8.0.302.8/EclipseAdoptium.Temurin.8.JDK.installer.yaml

[A Vision for Embedded Swift](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/visions/e...) has the details on this new build mode and is quite interesting.

> Effectively, there will be two bottom layers of Swift, and the lower one, “non-allocating” Embedded Swift, will necessarily be a more restricted compilation mode (e.g. classes will be disallowed as they fundamentally require heap allocations) and likely to be used only in very specialized use cases. “Allocating” Embedded Swift should allow classes and other language facilities that rely on the heap (e.g. indirect enums).

Also, this seems to maybe hint at the Swift runtime eventually being reimplemented in non-allocating Embedded Swift rather than the C++ (?) that it uses now:

> The Swift runtime APIs will be provided as an implementation that’s optimized for small codesize and will be available as a static library in the toolchain for common CPU architectures. Interestingly, it’s possible to write that implementation in “non-allocating” Baremetal Swift.

I may be out of my depth here as I've only casually used Rust, but this seems similar to Swift's proposed lifetime dependencies[1]. They're not in the type system formally so maybe they're closer to poloneius work

[1]: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/3055becc53a3c3...

Swift recently adopted a region-based approach for safe concurrency that builds on Milano et al’s ideas: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

No, it's not. Refcounting CAN be a garbage collection algorithm, but in Swift it's deterministic and done at compile time. Not to mention recently added support for non-copyable types that enforces unique ownership: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

> It's super easy to cause its type check to timeout, which is something I haven't seen when using Rust.

Yeah, the operator overloading design makes it too easy to construct an exponential search space.

> For instance, Swift doesn't have the orphan rule, so it's possible that 2 packages implement the same protocol for the same type, and when this happens currently there are no solutions;

There's now a warning about this: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals.... What other solutions can there be other than making it a hard error? It seems like an inherent drawback of typeclasses over first-class modules.

> there is this strange design decision that classes and structs should be different things and each have their own set of random limitations

structs in Swift are the same as structs in Rust, and a class is a heap-allocated reference counted box, like an Arc>.

> and there is SwiftUI, which hacks on the syntax itself, making statements no longer mean what they are supposed to mean

Result builders are a language feature and not part of SwiftUI: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

Just last week owning and borrowing parameters got accepted as well. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

It’s been the focus for a while especially after the concurrency work. It’s probably the final major feature before Swift 6

Swift 5.9 dropped at WWDC, and with it came with noncopyable value types:

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

as well as a way to explicitly move types:

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

I haven’t read either in-depth, though!

They actually can figure that out, though [0]. I hope this can solve some of it because their deployment model is the dumbest fucking thing. I'm glad they figured out how to backport async/await, it's just impossible to use in a serious library otherwise.

[0] https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals...

https://www.swift.org/swift-evolution/ is where the discussion and planning of the evolution of Swift takes place.