Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Drew Crawford via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > >> On March 24, 2017 at 11:46:00 AM, Charles Srstka (cocoa...@charlessoft.com) >> wrote: >> >>>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Drew Crawford via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> I would argue that supporting whatever the programmer's chosen mental model >>> is actually Swift's greatest strength. We could have a language with only >>> reference types for example, it would be far, far simpler and easier to >>> teach. I am glad that we don't have that language. >> >> We kinda do, though, or did, in Objective-C (well, the “Objective” parts of >> it, anyway). >> >> Charles >> > > Exactly. I mean the same people who brought us ObjC decided we needed a > language with multiple mental models. They could have shipped reference > types only, they shipped value types on day 1. To me there is no clearer > plank in the platform than that. > > If you like your ObjC, you can keep it. Swift exists exactly because we > reject some (not all) of the ObjC way, and it's not just syntax. One of the > things rejected is There Should Be One Way To Do It™. Swift embraces many > ways to write your program and has from 1.0. +1. I love this aspect of Swift. It lets me choose the tool and model best suited to each specific task. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
