You seem to be completely missing basically every point I have made. You were the one who said redundancy was a *goal* of swift, which it is not.
I have explained the actual issues with the current design of access controls in earlier posts (as well as various mitigation strategies). They had nothing to do with redundancy. > On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Drew Crawford <d...@sealedabstract.com> wrote: > On March 24, 2017 at 10:28:43 PM, Xiaodi Wu (xiaodi...@gmail.com > <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>) wrote: > >> I'm not sure where you're reading that Chris thinks the current design >> reaches the stated aims to his satisfaction. > > I'm pretty sure it's a fair assumption that when he introduces the > static/dynamic system to illustrate the design goals of Swift, he means those > goals can be seen in that feature to some significant extent. > >> "We intentionally want Swift to have a common 'center of gravity' and be an >> 'opinionated' language, rather than fall to the 'design by committee' >> approach that leads to a watered-down design." This is diametrically >> opposite to "shipping a full toolbox with plenty of overlap." > > Chris has elaborated on this elsewhere > <http://atp.fm/205-chris-lattner-interview-transcript/>: > >> Another thing to keep in mind is that Swift is opinionated, I guess is the >> way to say it. It really does encourage you to do the right thing where it >> can. For example, if you use var for everything, the Swift compiler >> [1:21:30] will say, hey, you marked this as a var but it could be a let, and >> let me fix it for you. That's just its subtle way of encouraging you to use >> immutable values, which is a very small thing, but it's just pushing you in >> the way that it thinks leads to a better code. Immutability for a local >> variable doesn't matter that much except that it communicates something more >> to the person who has to read and maintain your code. >> >> I think that Swift really does [1:22:00] encourage you down the right lines >> in some ways. But on the other hand, in other places where you're saying, >> "Should something be a class or a struct?”, the trade-offs are more nuanced >> and it's a harder thing, and the Swift compiler can't just know what problem >> it is that you want to solve, so it can't help you with that. >> > > `let` and `var` are "redundant" in the same way as private/fileprivate; one > can effectively replace the other. Far from advocating we should eliminate > the redundant keyword, he argues the compiler should encourage it, because > "Swift is an opinionated language" and an argument to the principle of least > power. The analogous idea would be if the compiler offered a fixit to change > "fileprivate" to "private" where legal. Actually, that would be an > interesting proposal, especially since some believe private/fileprivate is > hard to learn. > > But "Swift is an opinionated language" is not a battlecry for eliminating > "redundant" keywords, it is an exhortation to use them correctly. >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
