Reposting Károl reply on this list. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Károly Lőrentey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 2016. Jul 9., at 22:55, Goffredo Marocchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why have they not "fixed" this issue with Java 6/7/8 if it is bad to > have the current setup by default? Why C++ x09/x11/x14 is also not making > everything sealed/unsubclassable by default? > > I'd wager a guess that the strong desire not to break source compatibility > with existing code explains why Java and C++ are stuck forever with > suboptimal defaults. Some members of this list have a bit of background in > C++ language design (understatement of the day!); perhaps they know more. > > > Is it possible that having library authors use something like a sealed > keyword or similar is good enough for the default case? > > Swift is to be safe by default. I believe open subclassability is a power > tool that's unsafe without adequate training and thick protective gear; > therefore, it is useful to require posting yellow/black hazard signs when > it is in use. Safety first. > > "Opting for safety sometimes means Swift will feel strict, but we believe > that clarity saves time in the long run." > > Karoly > @lorentey >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
