<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><div><br>On 1 Dec 2017, at 00:54, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><span class="gmail-"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 26, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-3955765784387679720Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>I’d like to formally propose the inclusion of user-defined dynamic member lookup types.<br><br>Here is my latest draft of the proposal:<br><a href="https://gist.github.com/lattner/b016e1cf86c43732c8d82f90e5ae5438" target="_blank">https://gist.github.com/<wbr>lattner/<wbr>b016e1cf86c43732c8d82f90e5ae54<wbr>38</a><br><a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/768" target="_blank">https://github.com/apple/<wbr>swift-evolution/pull/768</a><br><br>An implementation of this design is available here:<br><a href="https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/13076" target="_blank">https://github.com/apple/<wbr>swift/pull/13076</a><br><br>The implementation is straight-forward and (IMO) non-invasive in the compiler.<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div><br></div></span><div>I think better interoperability with Python (and other OO languages in widespread use) is a good goal, and I agree that the implementation of the feature described is straight-forward and not terribly invasive in the compiler.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I do not think this proposal is going in the right direction for Swift. I have objections on several different grounds.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Philosophy</b></div><div>Swift is, unabashedly, a strong statically-typed language. We don’t allow implicit down casting, we require “as?” so you have to cope with the possibility of failure (or use “as!” and think hard about the “!”). Even the gaping hole that is AnyObject dispatch still requires the existence of an @objc declaration and produces an optional lookup result, so the user must contend with the potential for dynamic failure. Whenever we discuss adding more dynamic features to Swift, there’s a strong focus on maintaining that strong static type system.</div><div><br></div><div>IMO, this proposal is a significant departure from the fundamental character of Swift, because it allows access to possibly-nonexistent members (as well as calls with incorrect arguments, in the related proposal) without any indication that the operation might fail. It’s easy to fall through these cracks for any type that supports DynamicMemberLookupProtocol—a single-character typo when using a DynamicMemberLookupProtocol-<wbr>capable type means you’ve fallen out of the safety that Swift provides. I think that’s a poor experience for the Python interoperability case, but more on that in the Tooling section below.</div><div><br></div><div>While we shouldn’t necessarily avoid a feature simply because it can be used distastefully, consider something like this:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_-3955765784387679720Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>public extension NSObject : DynamicMemberLookupProtocol, DynamicCallableProtocol { … }</div><div><br></div><div>that goes directly to the Objective-C runtime to resolve member lookups and calls—avoiding @objc, bridging headers, and so on. It’s almost frighteningly convenient, and one could imagine some mixed Objective-C/Swift code bases where this would save a lot of typing (of code)… at the cost of losing static typing in the language. The presence of that one extension means I can no longer rely on the safety guarantees Swift normally provides, for any project that imports that extension and uses a subclass of NSObject. At best, we as a community decide “don’t do that”; at worse, some nontrivial fraction of the community decides that the benefits outweigh the costs (for this type or some other), and we can no longer say that Swift is a strong statically-typed language without adding “unless you’re using something that adopts DynamicMemberLookupProtocol”.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are several commenters below to whom I would have liked to respond in the fullness of time, but time constraints would make doing so prohibitive. Since your message set off an abundance of discussion, I'll reply to the points you make here and, along the way, ask your forbearance to bring up and respond to some related concerns raised by others.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that the prospect above seems not ideal at all. On reading Chris's proposal, it never occurred to me that the intention was to support such retroactive conformance to these special protocols. Admittedly, such retroactive conformance is possible with all protocols--with the notable exception of those that require compiler synthesis of requirements. But Chris's protocols seemed magical enough (in the gut feeling sense) that I naturally assumed that retroactive conformance was never on the table. We would be justified in making that prohibition here, I think, although I'm not sure if Chris as proposal author feels the same way.</div><div><br></div><div>Alternatively--and perhaps more elegantly--we could address this concern head-on by having, instead of `DynamicMemberLookupProtocol` and `DynamicCallable`, a magical class `DynamicObject` which all dynamic types must inherit from. It would then be clear by design that Swift types cannot be _retroactively dynamic_ in the sense that Chris proposes. I *think* the vast majority of bridged use cases can tolerate being `final class` types instead of `struct` types. I could be wrong though.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, as to the possibility of failure: I agree also that eliding the possibility of lookup failure at the callsite requires further consideration. Some might agree that restricting dynamic features only to subclasses of a `DynamicObject` might be clear enough that we do not need to go further in this regard. I think all will agree that inventing new (to Swift) notations like "->" or "::" to denote dynamic lookup is rather awkward and not ergonomic. I wonder if it would be instead sufficient to require dynamic member lookup to return values of type `T!` (as in, IUOs). IUOs are, after all, designed to deal with similar situations in bridging from Obj-C, and are explicitly "transitional technology."</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I love the idea of a DynamicObject type instead of a protocol.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div></div><div><b>Tooling</b></div><div>The Python interoperability enabled by this proposal *does* look fairly nice when you look at a small, correctly-written example. However, absolutely none of the tooling assistance we rely on when writing such code will work for Python interoperability. Examples:</div><div><br></div><div>* As noted earlier, if you typo’d a name of a Python entity or passed the wrong number of arguments to it, the compiler will not tell you: it’ll be a runtime failure in the Python interpreter. I guess that’s what you’d get if you were writing the code in Python, but Swift is supposed to be *better* than Python if we’re to convince a community to use Swift instead.</div><div>* Code completion won’t work, because Swift has no visibility into declarations written in Python</div><div>* Indexing/jump-to-definition/<wbr>lookup documentation/generated interface won’t ever work. None of the IDE features supported by SourceKit will work, which will be a significant regression for users coming from a Python-capable IDE.</div><div><br></div><div>Statically-typed languages should be a boon for tooling, but if a user coming from Python to Swift *because* it’s supposed to be a better development experience actually sees a significantly worse development experience, we’re not going to win them over. It’ll just feel inconsistent.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As I wrote in the earlier thread, I think this is the wrong way to reason about the use case--and a counterproductive one that effectively rejects the legitimacy of dynamic language interop support instead of working towards an optimal solution for it. Along those lines, some replies to your message literally question whether the user case is worthwhile to support at all, which I think entirely misses the mark.</div><div><br></div><div>As Chris writes in his proposal, there are several areas (such as data science) where, to put it plainly, Python or another dynamic language is significantly better than Swift due to a much larger ecosystem of libraries, tools, and user communities, with sometimes decades of lead time. It is nonsensical to talk about how Swift is "supposed to be better" in any way whatsoever in that context. As diehard Swift users, we may be confident that the virtues of Swift's syntax, static typing, compiler smarts, protocol-based design, or whatever else offer opportunities for, say, data science libraries and tools to be better in the future, eventually. But to make this even possible involves first making Swift a viable language in which to work with current data science tools. Your top bullet point here reasons that one key flaw of Chris's proposal is that he has not somehow figured out how to make dynamic Python calls give compile-time Swift errors. If this is the minimum bar for Python interop, then as far as I can tell, it seems isomorphic to rejecting interop with dynamic languages altogether.</div><div><br></div><div>It goes without saying that, in bridging between languages X and Y, much of X's native tooling will be inoperable, and much of Y's native tooling will not work. The solution is to build additional tools where necessary, not to argue that interop shouldn't be implemented in the first place.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I agree with everything that Xiaodi said. I believe that while it’s noble to want to bring more type information (ala TypeScript) to dynamic languages, we still need a simple way to dynamically call *at runtime* into dynamic languages. That may cause runtime errors, but that’s what dynamic languages are all about. I think it’s illusory to think that their nature can be profoundly changed. Even TypeScript, which brings all this type information to JavaScript still needs a way to call into non-typed interfaces: the compiler will be helpless in protecting the user from some runtime errors, but that’s the price you pay.</span></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div></div><div><b>Dynamic Typing Features</b></div><div>It’s possible that the right evolutionary path for Swift involves some notion of dynamic typing, which would have a lot of the properties sought by this proposal (and the DynamicCallableProtocol one). If that is true—and I’m not at all convinced that it is—we shouldn’t accidentally fall into a suboptimal design by taking small, easy, steps. If we’re to include dynamic-typing facilities, we should look at more existing practice—C# ‘dynamic' is one such approach, but more promising would be some form of gradual typing a la TypeScript that let’s one more smoothly (and probably explicitly) shift between strong and weak typing.</div><div><br></div><div><b>How Should Python Interoperability Work?</b></div><div>Going back to the central motivator for this proposal, I think that providing something akin to the Clang Importer provides the best interoperability experience: it would turn Python declarations into *real* Swift declarations, so that we get the various tooling benefits of having a strong statically-typed language. Sure, the argument types will all by PyObject or PyVal, but the names are there for code completion (and indexing, etc.) to work, and one could certainly imagine growing the importer to support Python’s <a href="https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html" target="_blank">typing annotations</a>. But the important part here is that it doesn’t change the language model at all—it’s a compiler feature, separate from the language. Yes, the Clang importer is a big gnarly beast—but if the goal is to support N such importers, we can refactor and share common infrastructure to make them similar, perhaps introducing some kind of type provider infrastructure to allow one to write new importers as Swift modules.</div><div><br></div><div>In truth, you don’t even need the compiler to be involved. The dynamic “subscript” operation could be implemented in a Swift library, and one could write a Python program to process a Python module and emit Swift wrappers that call into that subscript operation. You’ll get all of the tooling benefits with no compiler changes, and can tweak the wrapper generation however much you want, using typing annotations or other Python-specific information to create better wrappers over time.</div><div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I doubt seriously that there is any viable path to interoperating with a much more established and extensive ecosystem which begins by requiring that the more dominant ecosystem support Swift-specific annotations or tooling. It would seem that, if we're to implement a Swift library to do what you describe, it'd have to be one with extensive knowledge of both Python and Swift, being able to parse entire Python modules as well as create entire Swift ones. Since we haven't even designed a way of writing code-generating macros for Swift in Swift, I struggle to see how this hypothetical tool is going to be ever built, or whether sufficient people exist with the expertise to do so, given that you'd need deep expertise working in both languages in order to write the tool that permits you to work in both languages.</div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>