> On Aug 7, 2017, at 11:34 PM, Elviro Rocca <retired.hunter.dj...@gmail.com> 
> 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
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to