Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Quick note, a lot of the broader things you mention are exactly the case, ex. prioritizing backwards compatibility and ABI stability at all costs was a big kerfuffle around Swift 3/4 and publicly documented. ex. limited use initially

Broad note: there's something off with the approach, in general. ex. we're not trying to find the interpretation that's most favorable to them, just a likely one. Ex. It assumes perfect future knowledge to allow objectively correct decisions on sequencing at any point in the project lifecycle. ex. Entirely possible they had automated testing on this but it turns out the #s go deep red anytime anyone adds operator overloading anyway in Apple-bunded frameworks.

Simple note: As a burned out ex-bigco: Someone got wedded to operator overriding and it was an attractive CS problem where "I can fix it...or at least, I can fix it in enough cases" was a silent thought in a lot of ICs heads

That's a guess, but somewhat informed in that this was "fixed"/"addressed" and a recognized issue several years ago, and I watched two big drives at it with two different Apple people taking lead on patching/commenting on it publicly




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: