[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0117: Default classes to benon-subclassable publicly
Leonardo Pessoa
me at lmpessoa.com
Thu Jul 7 13:05:16 CDT 2016
Goffredo, sorry if it felt offensive. It was not my intention. I've dealt with so many different libraries where, as many already pointed out here, has to rely on "fixing" the library themselves. This is not what a library was supposed to be and I might have left a few of my bad experiences speak louder.
L
-----Original Message-----
From: "Goffredo Marocchi" <panajev at gmail.com>
Sent: 07/07/2016 01:39 PM
To: "Leonardo Pessoa" <me at lmpessoa.com>
Cc: "Jean-Daniel Dupas" <mailing at xenonium.com>; "swift-evolution" <swift-evolution at swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0117: Default classes to benon-subclassable publicly
I disagree that a stable for over 30 years of every OOP language that I know is equivalent to lack of care for good library design, but if we want to push value types by making working with classes harder so be it :P.
Seriously though
Mine is the opinion of a library-maker,
yours of the user of poorly designed/developed libraries.
this kind of attitude on this list got to stop.
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2016, at 17:23, Leonardo Pessoa via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
Jean, IMO marking every class as subclassable means the creator does
not care for you to design and develop a great library because s/he is
not caring for the library at all. I right now have to go through the
burdensome activity of marking too many classes/methods as final to
prevent misuse of my libraries and find good design workarounds when I
need to subclass internally what I don't want you to subclass.
IMO the usage of a library is to be crafted/planned/designed by their
developers not their users. Mine is the opinion of a library-maker,
yours of the user of poorly designed/developed libraries. By pushing
this proposal, developer of such libraries will have much burden to
make/keep a poor library or will have to work on better
design/implementation for it to suit its purpose.
L
On 7 July 2016 at 13:08, Jean-Daniel Dupas via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
Strong -1 too.
I can’t count the number of times it save my hours tone able to override
arbitrary classes and methods.
Sometimes to simply add log point to understand how the API work. Other
times to workaround bugs in the library. Or even to extends the library in a
way that the author did not intent in the first place, but that was
perfectly supported anyway.
I already see how libraries author will react to that new default. They will
either don’t care and mark all classes as subclassable, or find to
burdensome to get subclassability right and prohibit subclassing all
classes.
Le 7 juil. 2016 à 02:27, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
A **strong** -1
First, I have often found that you can’t always predict the way which
something will need to be extended. You think you know, but are then
surprised by creative uses. My favorite features of Swift/Cocoa involve
retroactive modeling.
Second, I don’t think this proposal will achieve its stated objective of
forcing people to think about subclassing more. It will just add confusing
boilerplate.
Things like Swift optionals work well because they make the (often
forgotten) choices explicit in the context that they are used. In the world
of Human Factors, we call it a forcing function. This proposal has the
inverse structure, and will be ineffective, because the “forcing” part of it
shows up in a different context (i.e. trying to use a framework) than the
decision is being made in (writing the framework). This type of thinking
leads to things like Java and the DMV.
As Tino said:
No matter what the defaults are, good libraries are hard to build, so I
predict this proposal would not only fail in increasing framework quality,
but also will make it much harder for users of those frameworks to work
around their flaws, which are just a natural part of every software.
I think he is right on here. Those who were prone to be thoughtful about
their design would have been anyway. Those who are not thoughtful about
their design will just leave these annotations off… leaving us with no
recourse to extend/modify classes. When people complain, they will add the
annotations without actually thinking about the meaning (i.e. stack overflow
/ the fixit tells me I need to add this word to make the compiler happy).
All this does is put framework users at the mercy of the framework writers.
Finally, this proposal is missing important aspects of the problem space.
If we truly want to solve the issue of subclassing, we need to consider all
of the common issues which arise. Looking at the cocoa documentation you
will see several types of annotations:
1) This method MUST be overridden
2) This method should NOT be overridden
3) This method MUST be called
3) This method should NOT be called except by subclasses
4) This method should NOT be called except by a method override calling
super
5) This method MUST call super
6) Overrides of this method should NOT call super
If we are attempting to bring thoughtfulness to the design of classes, I
would like to see things be extendable by default, but with annotations that
thoughtful framework designers can use to designate how a particular method
should be used. In most cases, it should not explicitly forbid the end user
from subclassing, but require them to acknowledge that what they are doing
is not intended by the framework. (e.g. "unsafe override func"…). That
would feel 1000x more swifty to me. Opt-out safety.
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
Swift?
No. It doesn’t actually solve the problem... and I haven’t actually run into
this problem in the real world.
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
No, it gives Swift more of a feeling of busywork and unnecessary boilerplate
while failing to achieve its objective. It goes against the retroactive
modeling allowed by other areas of Swift.
* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how
do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
I tend to avoid languages which require this sort of thing. In other
languages that lock things down, there is a need to unlock things soon after
(e.g. friend classes).
I predict the same thing will happen here. People will quickly be asking
for the ability to patch/override in cases where the framework designer was
wrong. That shows a problem inherent with the design...
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading,
or an in-depth study?
Read the proposal & discussion. Read earlier discussions around access
control that touched on this subject as well. I have been designing
frameworks for years.
Thanks,
Jon
Hello Swift community,
The review of "SE-0117: Default classes to be non-subclassable publicly"
begins now and runs through July 11. The proposal is available here:
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0117-non-public-subclassable-by-default.md
Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews
should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review
manager.
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift.
When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer
in your review:
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
Swift?
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how
do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading,
or an in-depth study?
More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thank you,
-Chris Lattner
Review Manager
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160707/f166d893/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list