[swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

[Vladimir.S]

On 15.06.2016 18:42, L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng at gmail.com
> <mailto:austinzheng at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 7:12 AM, L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Xiaodi. Interesting arguments there. It possibly seems a shame
>>>> to me, because it has knock on effects of making other things more
>>>> complicated. But I do see how for the most simple case of unwrapping a
>>>> single Optional, it makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> As much as I would like Brent’s proposal to make things easier to type,
>>>> I think nesting things inside a tuple, where a reader must keep track
>>>> of which input matches which output, could lead to harder to follow code.
>>>
>>> Isomehow I think last yesterday's keynote should recast some
>>> expectations about the degree of complexity (richness) the language will
>>> ever reach... Somehow xamarin/c# might endupmbeing swift++ for many people
>>
>> How so? What proposals might the core team accept that would confirm your
>> suspicions; would this be one of them? Maybe I should drop Swift and move
>> to C#, if that language is going to end up so much better than Swift in
>> the future. It's never good to be tied down to a single language.
>
> I think it is non-disputable that objc is a very simple language when
> compared to more recent languages. Today swift is capable of doing a lot of
> things, while still being a simpler language than older ones. Si the
> question for some people might be how much richer will swift become? Will
> it rival scala's type system? Will it rival java/scala/kotlin/ceylon/c++
> for the ability to organize large codebases? Will it have the
> runtime/compile time code fluidity of D? Etc.. The only way to find out is
> ... there is none. So then who is swift for? Apple wants it usable by
> people off the street... not people with a degree in computer science, but
> the people who may one day get a degree or not. So i wonder this plus the
> fact that objc was enough for so many years doesn't  simply mean that there
> is already a cap on the sophistication swift will ever get!!! that they
> will touch everything around it, before they push it. Today i have a degree
> of expressiveness with c# that i cannot have with swift, is the gap going
> to increase of decrease? That is what i care to know about before I advise
> large corps to invest in swift or not. bored/curious devs (i included) will
> always easily pick it up, but should i advise a CTO to invest on it...
>

Very interesting opinion, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I believe 
many of us(here in mailing list) have the same thoughts and questions.

I'd like to believe that Apple wants to make Swift be very easy and simple 
on start, but very powerful and feature reach when you(as a developer) 
grows and when you need "more". So I hope Apple will keep Swift very simple 
to start using by "people off the street", but at the same time will 
increase Swift features for 'advanced' programming and keep the language on 
the level near the other modern languages like C# and will adopt best 
features/conceptions from other languages.

C# is more mature language but, relating to Apple development, you need to 
deal with its runtime(Mono) and garbage collection. So there is some 
drawbacks in using of C# also, as I understand.

>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>