> On Dec 21, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In my considerable experience with C++, that is not at all where we are
> today. Increasingly, C++ is becoming seen as a language for high-performance
> computing, and people working in that area learn that they don't want to pay
> for virtual dispatch when they don't have to. It is true that for some of
> them, reflexive use of OOP is hard to shake, but they do learn eventually.
> Note also that Swift is really the second major language to take value
> semantics seriously. The first was C++.
>
I love those parts of Swift. Generics and value-type structs and high
performance from static binding. But I also love UIKit and AppKit and the
loosey-goosey but highly productive Objective-C style of dynamic binding and
subclassability everywhere.
There’s a great balance here in Swift between ‘struct’ and ‘class’ and two very
different styles of programming, and in my opinion, this proposal is trying to
extend what ARE benefits of one half of the language in a way that is likely to
wreck the other half of the language. Which is why I’m -1.
- Greg
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
