[swift-evolution] Proposal: Universal dynamic dispatch for method calls
cantrell at pobox.com
Mon Dec 14 15:46:58 CST 2015
> No problem, I’m taking time to pontificate here for the benefit of the community, hopefully it will pay itself back over time, because people understand the rationale / thought process that led to Swift better :-)
Cheers to that. It’s helpful to get these philosophical thoughts from the core team, as well as little “smell checks” on specific proposals — both for taste and for feasibility. I don’t think it will stop anyone from sharing opinions (programmers, strong opinions, like you said), but it does help guide discussion.
> I see a pretty broad range of what people are doing and what isn’t working well … This drives my personal priorities, and explains why I obsess about weird little things like getting implicit conversions for optionals right, how the IUO model works…
It’s no “weird little thing” — that’s been huge. Confusing implicit optional conversions (or lack thereof) + lack of unwrapping conveniences + too many things unnecessarily marked optional in Cocoa all made optionals quite maddening in Swift 1.0. When I first tried the language, I thought the whole approach to optionals might be a mistake.
Yet with improvements on all those fronts, I find working with optionals in Swift 2 quite pleasant. In 1.0, when optionals forced me to stop and think, it was usually about the language and how to work around it; in 2.x, when optionals force me to stop and think, it’s usually about my code, what I’m modeling with it, and where there are gaps in my reasoning. Turns out the basic optionals approach was solid all along, but needed the right surrounding details to make it play out well. Fiddly details had a big impact on the language experience.
Still, it seems like a lot of people fall back on forced unwrapping rather than trying to fully engage with the type system and think through their unwrappings. Is this a legacy of 1.x? Or does the language still nudge that way? I see a lot of instances of “foo!” in the wild, especially from relative beginners, that seem to be a reflexive reaction to a compiler error and not a carefully considered assertion about invariants guaranteeing safe unwrapping. This discussion makes me wonder: conversely to the decision of making “let” as short as “var,” perhaps “foo!” is too easy to type. Should the compiler remove fixits that suggest forced / implicit unwraps? Should it even be something ugly like “forceUnwrap!(foo)”? (OK, probably not. But there may be more gentle ways to tweak the incentives.)
So there’s the notion of the “programmer model” playing out in practice.
> Adding a feature can produce surprising outcomes. A classic historical example is when the C++ added templates to the language without realizing they were a turing complete meta-language. Sometime later this was discovered and a new field of template metaprogramming came into being.
I remember my mixture of delight & horror when I first learned that! (I was an intern for HP’s dev tools group back in the mid-90s, and spent a summer trying to find breaking test cases for their C++ compiler. Templates made it like shooting fish in a barrel — which is nothing against the compiler devs, who were awesome, but just a comment on the deep darkness of the corners of C++.)
That experience makes me wonder whether in some cases the Swift proposal process might put the cart before the horse by having a feature written up before it’s implemented. With some of these proposals, at least the more novel ones where the history of other languages isn’t as strong a guide, it could be valuable to have a phase where it’s prototyped on a branch and we all spend a little time playing with a feature before it’s officially accepted.
One of my favorite features of Swift so far has been its willingness to make breaking changes for the health of the language. But it would be nice to have those breaking changes happen _before_ a release when possible!
> I forgot the most important part. The most important aspect of evaluating something new is to expose it to ridiculously smart people, to see what they think.
Well, I don’t have the impression that the Swift core team is exactly hurting on _that_ front. But…
> This is one of the biggest benefits of all of swift being open source - public design and open debate directly leads to a better programming language.
…yes, hopefully many eyes bring value that’s complementary to the intelligence & expertise of the core team. There’s also a lot to be said for the sense of ownership and investment that comes from involving people in the decision making. That certainly pays dividends over time, in so many different community endeavors.
I’m grateful and excited to be involved in thinking about the language, as I’m sure are many others on this list. When it comes right down to it, I trust the core team to do good work because you always have — but it’s fun to be involved, and I do hope that involvement indeed proves valuable to the language.
https://innig.net • @inthehands • http://siestaframework.com/
More information about the swift-evolution