HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
swiftlang
swift-package-manager
Swift2015–2025
swiftlang / swift-package-manager

swift-package-manager

The Package Manager for the Swift Programming Language

Languages & CompilersDeveloper Tools
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
17Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
10.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The Package Manager for the Swift Programming Language

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 5:58:02 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-12-03 16:50:44 UTC to 2025-10-15 22:43:32 UTC.

02468102015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 4 submissions, 5 comments20152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC945
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

5 sources
cballard·Mar 23, 2016
> Developers: less dependencies is better, especially when they're so simple! No! The opposite of that. Lots of little µframeworks, defining composable and generic types, is much better than a giant monolith. The Swift Package Manager is taking this approach, and I think it's great: https://github.com/apple/swift-package-manager#modules The caret character doesn't appear anywhere in the semver spec, so whatever that does, it's non-standard: http://semver.org/ If your modules are small and well-defined, they probably won't need many versions anyways - they might just stay on 1.0.x forever. If you want to do something different, it might make more sense to just write another module.
In I've Just Liberated My Modules
Gorbzel·Mar 8, 2016
CocoaPods exists because developers want to learn how to "build apps" but lack the resources to intelligently include and link to 3rd party code in their projects. CocoaPods doesn't enable anything not otherwise configurable via git submodules and Xcode project hierarchies / build settings. Therefore, it's not Apple's problem. In fact, I've talked to a non-trivial amount of engineers (both in Cupertino and long time Cocoa devs) that disapprove of the shortcuts that Cocoapods takes all over, software architecture be damned. Reasonable parties can agree to disagree, but I do include 3rd party framework inclusion without a dependency manager as an interview screen for prospective iOS hires. Since you mention developer relations, I'll assume you're not actually arguing that this is Apple's technical responsibility, but that they should throw
Read the rest
around some $ to grease the wheels to make dependency inclusion better. As a platform vendor, funding hosting costs for some project that you don't agree with just to "support the community" is a bad idea. Better idea is to allocate resources to setup a structure that can fix the issue in a technically agreeable way while also benefitting from the independence a FOSS project provides. In doing so, you are correct that it'd be preferable for Apple to fund/use well-known FOSS standards, such as Github. In conclusion, Apple should setup a FOSS project to address the current inconveniences associated with third party package inclusion and should involve and pay Github somehow. Oh wait...https://github.com/apple/swift-package-manager
In CocoaPods downloads max out five GitHub server CPUs

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.