Sent from my iPhone
> On 19 Jul 2016, at 21:41, David Owens II <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 11:37 AM, L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Regards >> (From mobile) >> >>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 PM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> <off-topic> >>>> Cocoa currently hides the boilerplate for all of these wonderful >>>> constructs behind amazingly effective runtime acrobatics. This fits >>>> perfectly into Objective-C, and it also works very well in Swift. But such >>>> features could be in better harmony with Swift's unique set of language >>>> constructs if their boilerplate was hidden behind amazingly effective >>>> **compile-time** acrobatics instead. >>>> >>>> Such compile-time acrobatics are hard to perform today, and it is possible >>>> that the ability to create such systems will forever remain an advanced >>>> skill, just like forging runtime magic requires advanced skills in >>>> Objective-C. >>> >>> ... rantish... >>> >>> I am still not convinced that even the best compiler can fully replace what >>> a powerful runtime can provide no matter the acrobatics you put in in terms >>> of compiler introduced utility code/constructs or the code analysis efforts >>> you can put in at compile time >> >> That is a fact back by some interesting papers. By it is also true that one >> cannot always be used in place of the other. > > While it is true that the compiler cannot fully replace everything, it can > help with many types of errors that are hard to catch at runtime. > > I’ll reiterate this again: this proposal does *not* prevent Swift from > building language mechanism to allow for this type of behavior though. The > fact is, Swift APIs are heavily value or value semantics so the lack of > inheritance on classes is not going to be the primary reason you cannot > monkey patch something. > > What this proposal does say is this: there is no “safe” way to achieve this > type of behavior that the API authors either intentionally left out or left > out because of an omission. > > If you are subclassing a class in Swift, under this proposal, you can be sure > of one thing: the author explicitly made it so you’d be able to. We can argue > if they did so with diligence, but that’s mostly immaterial to the discussion. > > The fact is, in order to allow monkey patching, Swift is going to need to > answer many questions that it still has yet to answer, such as how reflection > is really going to work. However, with these more restrictive defaults, it’s > possible to extend the language to provide runtime monkey patching that can > be more easily audited both in source code and at runtime. Instead of API > authors just seeing crashes in their libraries and not realizing that someone > swizzled a method, we would now be able to mark who did the swizzling and > which functions were actually swizzled. > > An example of how this *could* look would be something like this: > > struct Person { /* This is defined in module A */ > // a bunch of fields > var birthDate: Date { get set } > > func calculateAge() -> Int { return 12; } > } > > Obviously there is a bug in `calculateAge`. How could we fix it? Well, in > your app framework (or some other target as needed) as we don’t have the > ability to fix module A directly: > > extension Person { > @replaceMethodImplementation func calculateAge() -> Int { /* better > implementation */ } > } > > This would require support within the Swift language and tooling. For one, > we’d need the non-optimized code to be distributed so that code within module > A used this new implementation of `calculateAge`. However, this is the > direction I’d much rather see Swift go. The ability to annotate code properly > as monkey patches so we can audit them, track them, version them, and > identify them clearly both at compile time and runtime. > > I’m all for Swift getting the right underlying model. After that, we can > address a better way to provide the necessary means to monkey patch and > change behavior, but first the fundamentals need to be nailed properly. Agreed, but we need to get ourselves some metrics and not to be afraid to considered annoying non true believers :). As more coders use Swift in their apps for some portions or the entirety of their codebase, are we seeing less bugs? When will it be proper to collect the data in a productive non biased way? I think it'll be very interesting as more stats are available other than LOC ones. We desire to have Swift run in all possible scenarios, complex video games included, and being a heavily value type based language with many built-in components using CoW semantics (sizeable in memory copies when some coders may forget it will happen). There is a reason why academia and a lot of coders back then we're pushing people towards reference types and pass by reference semantics and away from how C dealt with big structs and function pointers to achieve similar features. > > -David
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
