Well said, thanks for taking time to post this :). Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 Feb 2017, at 19:34, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This is bad faith. The original discussion contains many real life example. > "bad faith"? Really? If we have the same interpretation of this phrase in our > dictionaries, it's only fitting here as attribute for the sentence following > it. > I took a position that is extremely easy to attack, yet the only counter > argument is the claim that there are many real life examples (instead of > citing a single one). That's just "alternative facts", and it tells a lot > about the actual power of the arguments that are used to justify forbidding > subclassing. > Afaik, there hasn't been a single real life example by those who fought for > "final by default", and it took quite a long time until someone from core > came up with a scenario which illustrated a disadvantage of non-final classes > in a lib — but that example had bad (worse) consequences in a > final-by-default setup as well, so it wasn't convincing for me. > > First step in discussion should be agreeing on facts, and in this discussion, > imho the most important fact is that this actually isn't about facts at all, > but rather about opinion and personal preferences: > When someone suggests to rename the keyword "func" to "fn" or "function", it > is ridiculous to argue that either choice is better, and the same is true for > this topic (it just has bigger consequences). > When you actually read the original discussion, I expect you will find more > false claims and questionable tactics from both parties than valuable > examples, and this drags down the quality of the debate. > >> You just don’t want to admit open is useful for many library writers. > > Of course open is extremely useful for library writers — especially for those > who write libraries that are intended to be actually used… > Did anyone question that? (I guess the title of the thread can be a little > bit irritating, but afaics, it is only the keyword that should be removed, > not the feature itself). > > As I told the author of this draft, I can only tell its opposers as well: > Just relax and admit that you are not fighting for the better choice, but > only for the one you like better. > > (btw, that is the case for a lot of decisions: > Typed throws aren't better than untyped ones, zero-based arrays aren't better > than 1-based arrays, functional programming isn't better than POP or OO, > composition isn't better than inheritance, structs aren't better than > classes… the strongest statement you can make for some of those alternatives > is that they perform better in specific situations) > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
