I was not advocating the lack of constraints, programmers like all other artists (and engineers, which are artists too ;)), but that the beauty is the moderation of the two extremes :). ... and that architects leave the problems you are talking about to the structural engineer :P.
Gravity is a constrain, but a different one than having to use only a certain pencil to do your sketches with and only being able to use Windows 95 OSR 3 to work on or even weirder limitations. On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think sometimes the community in this mailing list loses sight on the >> fact that coding is a creative endeavour much similar to architectural >> design or painting. There may be math and well researched and structured >> ideas in place, but it requires creativity too. >> > > Architects are constrained to craft buildings that will stand in the face > of gravity, and even painters don't have pigments for every color visible > to the human eye. There's a wonderful novel, _Gadsby_, written without the > letter 'e'; I haven't read it but I understand it's truly an > accomplishment. This is not so drastic here. In this case, the apt analogy > would be that we find the letter 'a with circle on top' to be posing some > pesky problems; do you think you could write a novel in English without > using 'a with circle on top'? I wager that your creativity will not suffer > (unless your novel describes a trip to IKEA, in which case I'm sorry). > > >> >> Trying to force a strict one size fits all The One True standard usually >> ends up fragmenting the standard further, by adding yet another take on >> what is the most orthodox implementation and who are the heretics... >> >> I do not think dismissing the idea of having more than one way of >> skinning the proverbial cat as an anti-goal is doing a good service to the >> community or the language as it completely disregards context, people >> differing idea of the subjective best coding style and patterns (which >> pattern do I use? Which algorithm do I use to sort this data set with? A >> good engineer will give you a direct and concise answer, but a better one >> will say "it depends... What's the context? What is the problem I need to >> solve, what are the constraints and the data set I am working on?"). >> >> The way some users seem to want Swift to follow sounds like protecting >> users from mistakes by sometimes removing the ability which could lead to >> mistakes in the first place, but that removes all the good things you could >> do if you were to trust developers with the extra responsibility. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 10 Jun 2016, at 18:30, let var go via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> I respect that anti-goal, but I think being over-rigid about limiting >> developers' choice of expression is also an anti-goal. >> >> To me, it is like guard statements vs. if-let statements. Some people >> find one to be more clear than the other. Often times the best choice >> depends on the context. Sometimes a guard statement can be re-written as an >> if-let statement in a way that makes the code more clear, and vice versa. >> And different people will inevitably have different personal preferences - >> their own "style", if you will - and will favor one over the other. But it >> would be a mistake to force everyone into one box in order to prevent the >> fracturing of the Swift community into "dialects." >> >> But most importantly (and this is really the kicker for me) there are >> times when the "where" syntax provides the maximum amount of clarity in the >> context of my code, and I don't want to lose that expressive power. >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think this idea--if you don't like it, then you don't have to use >>> it--is indicative of a key worry here: it's inessential to the language and >>> promotes dialects wherein certain people use it and others wherein they >>> don't. This is an anti-goal. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:10 let var go <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Leave it in! >>>> >>>> It's a great little tool. I don't use it very often, but when I do it >>>> is because I've decided that in the context of that piece of code it does >>>> exactly what I want it to do with the maximum amount of clarity. >>>> >>>> If you don't like it, then don't use it, but I can't see how it >>>> detracts from the language at all. >>>> >>>> The *only* argument that I have heard for removing it is that some >>>> people don't immediately intuit how to use it. I didn't have any trouble >>>> with it at all. It follows one of the most basic programming patterns ever: >>>> "For all x in X, if predicate P is true, do something." The use of the >>>> keyword "where" makes perfect sense in that context, and when I read it out >>>> loud, it sounds natural: "For all x in X where P, do something." That is an >>>> elegant, succinct, and clear way of stating exactly what I want my program >>>> to do. >>>> >>>> I don't doubt that it has caused some confusion for some people, but >>>> I'm not sold that that is a good enough reason to get rid of it. It seems >>>> strange to get rid of a tool because not everyone understands how to use it >>>> immediately, without ever having to ask a single question. As long as its >>>> not a dangerous tool (and it isn't), then keep it in the workshop for those >>>> times when it comes in handy. And even if there is some initial confusion, >>>> it doesn't sound like it lasted that long. It's more like, "Does this work >>>> like X, or does this work like Y? Let's see...oh, it works like X. Ok." >>>> That's the entire learning curve...about 5 seconds of curiosity followed by >>>> the blissful feeling of resolution. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:32 AM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Sean Heber via swift-evolution < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > And to follow-up to myself once again, I went to my "Cool 3rd Party >>>>>> Swift Repos" folder and did the same search. Among the 15 repos in that >>>>>> folder, a joint search returned about 650 hits on for-in (again with some >>>>>> false positives) and not a single for-in-while use. >>>>>> >>>>>> Weird. My own Swift projects (not on Github :P) use “where” all the >>>>>> time with for loops. I really like it and think it reads *and* writes far >>>>>> better as well as makes for nicer one-liners. In one project, by rough >>>>>> count, I have about 20 that use “where” vs. 40 in that same project not >>>>>> using “where”. >>>>>> >>>>>> In another smaller test project, there are only 10 for loops, but >>>>>> even so one still managed to use where. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a lot of data without looking at even more projects, I admit, but >>>>>> this seems to suggest that the usage of “where” is going to be very >>>>>> developer-dependent. Perhaps there’s some factor of prior background at >>>>>> work here? (I’ve done a lot of SQL in another life, for example.) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is worrying if true, because it suggests that it's enabling >>>>> 'dialects' of Swift, an explicit anti-goal of the language. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I feel like “where” is a more declarative construct and that we >>>>>> should be encouraging that way of thinking in general. When using it, it >>>>>> feels like “magic” for some reason - even though there’s nothing special >>>>>> about it. It feels like I’ve made the language work *for me* a little bit >>>>>> rather than me having to contort my solution to the will of the language. >>>>>> This may be highly subjective. >>>>>> >>>>>> l8r >>>>>> Sean >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> 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
