Yeah, the article's technical analysis is good but I'm not sure what this line was supposed to say: what it actually says is wrong. Swift is definitely intended to replace Objective-C.
Perhaps that line in article meant that it's not binary identical to Objective-C. Swift classes definitely use different method invocation semantics (unless you adorn the class with the @objc attribute).
Perhaps that line in article meant that it's not binary identical to Objective-C. Swift classes definitely use different method invocation semantics (unless you adorn the class with the @objc attribute).