<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">I don’t disagree with your overall point, but I do want to emphasize that forcing apps to bundle the stdlib and runtime is more than just suboptimal.</div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Wouldn't it be possible to have several versions of the runtime bundled with the OS? Frameworks on macOS still have a filesystem layout that is build around the idea of having several versions in one bundle.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Also, breaking ABI isn't that uncommon: C++ did so in the past (and imho that language did things that are worse ;-)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I guess the problem is at least partly a phycological one:</div><div>ABI stability was supposed to be one major feature of Swift 3, and it's somewhat depressing when big goals are delayed over and over.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Maybe you could "stabilise" the ABI temporarily, and plan for a breaking change in two or three years, when the dust has settled?</div><div>Doing so would reduce the pressure, and long-term Mac developers are used to huge breaking changes anyway ;-)</div><div>It could also free resources to work on features and ideas that help to realise shortcomings worth to be addressed in a "really stable" ABI.</div></body></html>