on Thu Dec 29 2016, Freak Show <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Dec 29, 2016, at 13:28, Rod Brown via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’m in agreement that ‘dynamic’ is probably not what you want without a >> declaration. > > I hold a completely opposite viewpoint. Dynamic is always what I want > and table based is premature optimization. Late binding is important. > I found far too often when working in C++ (yes I am really flipping > old) I would come across code where a developer hadn't chosen to make > a method virtual and I found myself just up a creek with regards to > extending that code. Ditto people declaring stuff final in Java for > no good reason. > > The important thing to consider is that the future is generally > unknowable and if you don't know the future you cannot make good > choices about what should and should not be dynamic. So the > conservative thing is to make everything dynamic until you cannot > afford it - which...is usually never.
By that measure there should be no encapsulation; we should make everything public, because somebody might need it someday. Cheers, -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
