> On Aug 7, 2017, at 11:34 PM, Elviro Rocca <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I agree with everything you wrote, in particular I agree with the idea that > it is more important to get the big efforts right, and that they should take > priority. But I would consider a distinction: > > - big efforts that add huge new features to the language so that things that > were done in userland with libraries can be done natively and idiomatically > (concurrent programming, for example); > - more "theoretical" big efforts, that allow one, while building a single app > or a big library, to "express" more things more precisely in the language, > and improvements to the generics and protocols systems fall in this second > realm; > > The reason why I consider the second kind of feature as more important than > the first (thus, earning higher priority) is that, apart from reducing the > amount of busywork to be done in many cases where the abstraction power is > not good enough, it gives more tools for the community to build upon, it > allows many people to do more with the language than probably me, you and the > core team have ever though of, it fosters the explosion of creativity that's > only possible when a language is expressive enough and it's not only based on > certain conventions (that, by definition, constraint the way a language is > commonly used).
MHO is that both are important. I think the details of the tradeoffs involved prioritizing the individual members of those categories are bigger than the difference between the two categories. I don’t think this is a useful way to try to slice the problem up. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
