[swift-evolution] [planning] [discussion] Schedule for return of closure parameter labels (+ world domination ramble)
clattner at nondot.org
Tue Aug 8 12:18:38 CDT 2017
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 11:34 PM, Elviro Rocca <retired.hunter.djura at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with everything you wrote, in particular I agree with the idea that it is more important to get the big efforts right, and that they should take priority. But I would consider a distinction:
> - big efforts that add huge new features to the language so that things that were done in userland with libraries can be done natively and idiomatically (concurrent programming, for example);
> - more "theoretical" big efforts, that allow one, while building a single app or a big library, to "express" more things more precisely in the language, and improvements to the generics and protocols systems fall in this second realm;
> The reason why I consider the second kind of feature as more important than the first (thus, earning higher priority) is that, apart from reducing the amount of busywork to be done in many cases where the abstraction power is not good enough, it gives more tools for the community to build upon, it allows many people to do more with the language than probably me, you and the core team have ever though of, it fosters the explosion of creativity that's only possible when a language is expressive enough and it's not only based on certain conventions (that, by definition, constraint the way a language is commonly used).
MHO is that both are important. I think the details of the tradeoffs involved prioritizing the individual members of those categories are bigger than the difference between the two categories. I don’t think this is a useful way to try to slice the problem up.
More information about the swift-evolution