Re: Bindings in Swift
Re: Bindings in Swift
- Subject: Re: Bindings in Swift
- From: Kyle Sluder <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:15:40 -0700
On Aug 10, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Quincey Morris <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 06:46 , Roland King <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> And if anyone thinks Swift is all simplicity and scripty loveliness I came across this StackOverflow question and answer today. It will be a while before I entirely understand it, it will be a long while before I could attempt to reproduce it.
>
> Deliberately missing your point, I’d say the problem is that Swift has two kinds of generics — one for class types and one for protocols. The concepts are fairly easy to grasp individually, but become horrendously complex when allowed to interact. Personally, I regard this as a bug in the language design.
>
> OTOH, C++ has historically proved that generics (i.e. templates)
I really wish people would stop referring to C++ templates as generics. C++ template arguments can be numbers, strings, types, or anything else, and the compiler will sit there and dutifully compute whatever program you encode via templates.
Generics are strictly type parameterization. They are far simpler to understand and implement. And Swift has some techniques to avoid some of the problems that arise even in “normal” use of C++ templates, like associated types (to keep generic type signatures simple) and a type inference algorithm that doesn’t completely suck.
--Kyle Sluder
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden