On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> > > On Aug 7, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Elviro Rocca <retired.hunter.djura@gmail. > com> wrote: > > > > I read many times the "most users don't care about this" objection but I > always considered it more like an argument for postponing something than > removing it completely from the Swift equation (I believe I also read words > like that from yourself, Chris), because there is a point about scheduling > work to make the language more useful for more people faster. I'm still > acting upon the belief that the Swift core team recognizes that the > language still lacks a lot of absolutely basic and essential features, that > every "power user" that pushes the boundaries of what Swift has to offer > can't wait for to be added. > > Yes, there is a really huge amount of stuff that is missing from Swift. I > suspect my list is longer than anyone else’s. :-) > > My point on this is that it is more important to get the big efforts right > than it is to over-prioritize the small efforts. This is both because of > implementation bandwidth reasons, but more importantly because it leads to > a better design. Big efforts are *hard*, and tend to be less driven by the > community at large, but they really should take priority. > > If you’re into analogies, I see features like the generics improvements, > concurrency model, ownership system, macro system, ABI stability, new > frameworks, and other large scale efforts as the “bricks" that make up the > house of Swift. In that analogy, smaller proposals are “mortar” that fills > in the cracks between the bricks. If we add too much mortar too early on, > we run the risk of the house of Swift being built out of mortar, or of not > being able to fit the bricks into the right places. That would be very > bad, given that we all want the house of Swift to be strong and beautiful > over the long term. > > Clearly there is a balance to be made, which is why major Swift releases > are a mix of large efforts (e.g. Codable improvements, typed keypaths, > String redesign...) as well as smaller ones (e.g. multiline strings, > dictionary API improvements, etc). > > -Chris > > The FSA drama is a good example of this. You could either create a special new syntax for them, or extend the generics system to take value parameters. Then again there is a problem where people use that as an excuse to procrastinate on a feature.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution