[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0026 Abstract classes and methods

David Hart david at hartbit.com
Fri Mar 4 02:32:55 CST 2016

> On 26 Feb 2016, at 19:11, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 	• What is your evaluation of the proposal?

-1. I'm strongly against this proposal because they are already language features that provide similar benefits. Even if Swift is a multi-paradigm language, it has always meshed together orthogonal concepts: functional + oop + systems. Whereas in a his case, the proposal suggests adding a different syntax for something that can almost be completely expressed with protocols and protocol extensions.

> 	• Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

As POP can already provide similar behaviour without subclassing, I'd say the problem is pretty much non-existent.

> 	• Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

No. I believe it goes contrary to the philosophy and paradigms of Swift as I understand them.

> 	• If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

Yes, Java and C#. Abstract classes were useful in those languages, but fairly rarely used (as far as I'm concerned). And we now have protocol extensions to do the same.

> 	• How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

In-depth reading, followed he discussion.

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list