> On Aug 4, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Mathew Huusko V <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the swift response, it's an honour; I agree wholeheartedly with > your logic and sentiment. Sorry if I was unclear, but my concern/curiosity is > not for the speed of Swift's development, but in fact for its long term > evolution and longevity. At risk of repeating myself/boring everyone, that > concern manifests over two intermingling phenomena: > 1) in the evolution email/proposal archive, a well intentioned (towards > -complexity and +quality) but sometimes blasé air around potential > uses/requirements of the language (~"Swift won't support that because people > probably wouldn't use/need it"). > 2) the reality of the clock, or what I think/thought the reality was. > Obviously I don't want Swift to evolve too fast, and don't think having any > particular feature right now is worth risking that, but won't the ABI be > stabilised eventually (Swift 5?) and then it will actually be too late for > some features?
No. ABI stability is less of a bound of new things than it is a bound on the ability to change existing things. To take one random example, C++ has been ABI stable on the Mac since effectively 10.0 (or whatever release first shipped GCC 3). That hasn’t impeded the ability to add tons of new stuff to C++. :-) -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
