>Swift's syntax is hardly any different from languages in the ML family.

Call it superficial if you like but I consider the syntactic features that Swift derives from curly brace languages (not just the curly braces themselves but the syntax for generics, the lack of double semicolons, etc.) what makes it a lot more appealing than any ML I've been exposed to.

Beyond my own preferences I think this matters for language adoption. The name "Go++" implies it will be recruiting from Go users. (It's probably why Scala went with curly braces.) Here being associated with Apple might actually be a detrimental factor for Swift.

>All the languages in the ML family have automatic memory management. Be it RC, GC, or compiler dataflow models like affine types.

I never said they didn't. What I said was that none of the languages you listed combined garbage collection and a curly brace syntax. Rust and ATS are memory safe but their memory safety features require greater programmer effort to use (especially ATS', I imagine).

>Swift's type system, is just like any ML language.

You're right. I was mistaken to claim the type system as an advantage Swift has over other candidates for "Go++".

That said, I am not sure about the OO model, which Swift carries over from Objective-C. I have not used OO in OCaml. How does it compare to Swift's?

>Unless Apple decides to rewrite WebObjects from Java into Swift that is.

While that is not impossible it is unlikely. Regardless, I expect the users of the language to port something like Java's Spark long before that happens. It will only happen if and when Apple makes the language open source, of course.