> Le 7 déc. 2017 à 11:00, Benjamin G via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit : > > Until, and if, the “resistance” presents some conceptual explanation of how > this could cause harm (I’m not asking for anything concrete, just a logical > series of events that causes a plausible problem in practice), my belief is > that the Swift community will see this as unwarranted fear. > > On the server side : > automatically generate an administration api for your model based on > introspection. Since swift doesn't provide anything convenient, and people > may simply try to "port" approach from python framework (like django), > they'll resort on recreating some kind of BaseDynamicObject that you'll have > to extend for all your base classe, using some "properties()" and "methods()" > functions to define your properties and methods for your model. > > Or : > Automatically generate a database schema based on your model. Same idea.
The explicit harm that Chris is looking for is yet to be shown. You should not assume that everybody feels an horror thrill by reading such applications of dynamism. As a matter of fact, users of dynamic languages *live* and *enjoy* this. Python and Ruby users, obviously (Rails + Django), but also ours close cousins, the Objective-C developers, who rely on Key-Value coding or validation methods. Those use cases are, I'm sorry to say it, *compelling* use cases for dynamism. Ironically, "Explicit is better than implicit" is a... Python motto ;-) Gwendal
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
