2015-03-04 10:18 GMT+01:00 [email protected] <[email protected]>: > > Le 4 mars 2015 10:03, "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > Here is an article complaining about Integer types in Swift. > > > > Swift: Madness of Generic Integer > > > > > http://blog.krzyzanowskim.com/2015/03/01/swift_madness_of_generic_integer/ > > > > Really, those statically typed languages are soo much better. >
The article is interesting. To translate it in Smalltalk terms, it's as if we would like to decline the SmallInteger into several subtypes... Of course we would not want to do that, because complexification would much probably result in a slower VM! But, let's imagine that it can pay.. We can also transpose this to collections - ByteArray ShortIntegerArray WordArray with signed/unsigned variants - without resorting to VM considerations... Are we sure that Smalltalk implementation (image side) would be simpler than Swift with all the double dispatching machinery involved? So, if the goal of having such space/time optimization is founded (which we can't know without context), I would say Swift does not do it that bad... Some languages are much worse, like say: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/c/INT32-C.+Ensure+that+operations+on+signed+integers+do+not+result+in+overflow ;) > Thx for the share. Enlightment doesn't come easy. > > Remember that a lot of code in this world is still COBOL... > > Phil > > > > > Sven > > >
