It would not be like going back to Windows 95... and I did not mention the infamous OSR3 release to make that harsh of a point :P...
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <pana...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > The question is, does removing `where` feel to you like going from OS X > 10.11 to Windows 95, or is it more like going from OS X 10.11.4 to OS X > 10.11.3? > > > >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Goffredo Marocchi <pana...@gmail.com> >>> 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 < >>>> swift-evolution@swift.org> 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 <xiaodi...@gmail.com> 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 <letva...@gmail.com> 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 < >>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Sean Heber via swift-evolution < >>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org> 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 >>>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution