> On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 20.07.2016 um 18:20 schrieb L. Mihalkovic <laurent.mihalko...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:laurent.mihalko...@gmail.com>>:
>>
>>> So my advice: Be glad that you don't see such problems in your real work
>>> life, and hope that the extremists who would like to completely remove
>>> classic object orientation and cripple Swift to fully match their ideals
>>> don't prevail ;-)
>>
>> That ship has sailed... it is now just a matter of the implementation
>> details... My hopes are now on google forking swift like they did to webkit
>> and dalvik. It won't save the apps, bug it would the servers.
> ;-) nay, that's a little bit to pessimistic for me:
> After all, even with SE-0117, you can still write nice code with Swift — it
> just will be less fun :(
>
> Afaics, there is constant pressure to turn Swift into a language for fools,
> rather than a language that helps us avoiding foolish mistakes… but so far,
> Swift got more things right for me than any of the alternatives.
I think we’ve all had some disappointments in at least some part of the
evolution of Swift - it is only natural, as the difference of opinions and
perspectives is why this mailing list exists.
I for one was very disappointed at the addition of the new “private” visibility
- I didn’t see a real-world need for smaller-than-file scope, it made
‘fileprivate' be spelled ugly and I felt it was too early to expand visibility
features before we had established whether submodules or multi-module
frameworks would be evolution targets. But in the words of a former coworker,
it hardly seems a hill worth dying on.
In the end, design is all about trade-offs. I still think Swift has a decent
and consistent design and design evolution, and I look forward to see what we
enable in the Swift 4/5 timeframe.
-DW
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
