11
Vaccuss
7y

Hey everybody been a while but I have a rant. Swift fucking swift and IOS dev. Okay so been learning swift for some frontend casual work, no worries they are lending me a mac to work in.

Now comes the rant part IOS is fine to work in I dont have any qualms about platform but.. FOR THE LOVE OF COMMON FUCKING SENSE GET SOME FUCKING CONSISTENCY.

You have made swift statically typed language to supposedly make developing more consistant and better fine no worries i dont like static typed languages cause they are unnecessary but fine. then you go NAH FUCK IT EVERYTHING IN A MODULE IS IN GLOBAL SCOPE, FUCK IMPORT STATEMENTS, FUCK MAINTAINABILITY AND FUCK YOU FOR ASKING.

Comments
  • 2
    Typing isnt useful??? Blasphemi, you wite a bit more code to avoid tons of possible problems.
  • 0
    @Codex404 I have never ran into a problem that a statically typed language would have prevented.
    I subscribe to line of thought if you are worried about those types of side effects you are either not disciplined enough in you approach or you have not tested enough.

    Now that is not too say they are not good solid languages but i find that concept to be redundant.
  • 0
    @Vaccuss well once you start working in teams with multiple people of different skill levels you will get these problems sometimes. Also knowimg what type it is and having the possibilty to get to the source of that type with one click is really handy. With dynamic typing the type is defined at runtime so you wouldnt be able to.
  • 0
    @Codex404 I agree working with different skill levels is hard however what you are describing is exactly the problem that is solved by TDD and further helped by appropriate coding discipline.

    Though yes seeing what type an object is by a click is handy. But on the same note if you dont know what somthing is by looking at the name of it then more refactoring is in order anyway.
  • 1
    @Vaccuss not only knowing what type it is but also knowing what that class can do without switching to documentation is what I meant.
  • 1
    @Codex404 That is a fair enough statement. Thanks for the point of view I think about it in the future :D
Add Comment