So, I was thinking about Objective-C's class clusters last week, and how they were basically our "Protocol-Oriented Programming" before we had Protocol-Oriented Programming. A cluster like NSArray behaved very much like a Swift protocol; it established a basic set of primitive operations that each subclass was expected to implement, and provided a bunch of default behaviors that were built on top of those primitives. Most crucially, NSArrays were accepted by virtually every array-taking API on the system, which meant you could take a bridged CFArrayRef, any of the other 38 NSArray subclasses included with the frameworks, your own homegrown array type, or even something crazy like that thing that -[NSObject mutableArrayValueForKey:] returned, and use it exactly like any other array, without ever having to convert or translate it.
In Swift, of course, we have protocols like Collection which do much the same thing as the old class clusters. In some ways, though, they are not as useful, because most of the framework APIs don't support them. Instead, these APIs require a certain specific type of collection—an Array—with the result being that anything else you happen to be using needs to be converted in order to be passed to any of these APIs. In addition to being less convenient, this can result in performance penalties resulting from all the conversions.
Does it need to be this way? It seems to me that a method declared thus:
- (void)fooWithBar:(NSArray<SomeType *> *)bar;
could simply be imported as taking a Collection, like so:
func foo<C: Collection>(bar: C) where C.Element == SomeType
Similarly, methods taking NSString parameters could be imported as taking StringProtocol, methods taking NSSet parameters could be imported as taking Sequence & SetAlgebra (or something of that nature), methods taking NSData parameters could take a hypothetical DataProtocol, and perhaps we could make a protocol for Dictionary to belong to as well. When crossing the Objective-C bridge, these could all simply be bridged to custom subclasses of NSArray, NSString, et al that, instead of wrapping an Array or a String, instead wrapped a Collection or a StringProtocol. This seems not too difficult to implement—many of these wrappers exist already, and would only need to be changed to wrap the generic type instead of the concrete. In return, the usability of Swift protocol types would be greatly increased all across the board, and I don't think it would break much if any code at all. It's a slam dunk.
The next thing to think about would be return types, which is likely to be more controversial because it would require some non-trivial changes in usage patterns. However, I think it's at least worth discussing, because I can see some not insubstantial benefits. Methods that return generic types like NSArray would need to be left alone until we have generalized existentials in the language, but for non-generic types such as String, we could conceivably replace those with a protocol today:
- (NSString *)returnsAString
becomes:
func returnsAString() -> StringProtocol
Since StringProtocol contains an impressive amount of String's interface, many strings returned in this manner could be used as is, in an immutable context. In a mutable context, source changes would be required, as the string would need to be converted:
var mutable = String(returnedFromObjC)
However, strings returned in this manner would inherit one large benefit over the status quo, which is a significant reduction in the amount of bridging magic required. Since NSString can simply be extended to conform to StringProtocol, the only automatic conversion that would strictly be needed would be to call -copy on the returned object to make sure it won't mutate on us after the fact, and otherwise it could just be passed to us as is. In addition, the returned string could then be passed to another Objective-C API taking a StringProtocol without incurring the performance hit of the two-way round-trip conversion that is currently required. This would also allow for great simplification of String's internal implementation, improving the maintainability of the code. Finally, we could also extend the CoreFoundation types such as CFString to conform to the protocols, and almost all of our bridging hassles would just magically disappear.
However, the one type that I feel would be overwhelmingly improved by a protocol-oriented Objective-C bridge is Data. Currently, any given Data struct can be, under the hood:
A simple native-Swift wrapper around a memory buffer.
A slice of the aforementioned wrapper.
A bridged CFData object.
A slice of a bridged CFData object.
A contiguous dispatch_data_t object.
A non-contiguous dispatch_data_t object.
A slice of either a contiguous or a non-contiguous dispatch_data_t object.
One of the various other NSData subclasses defined by the frameworks, such as NSConcreteData, NSPurgeableData, or NSSubrangeData.
A custom user-defined subclass of NSData.
A slice of another framework-defined or user-defined NSData subclass.
Honestly there are probably more cases that I'm forgetting.
Having this one Data type take on such a staggering number of jobs has been notoriously difficult to implement, resulting in numerous bugs. Here is a list of bugs involving Data that I have run into, personally:
Note that this is not an exhaustive list; these are only the ones that I have managed to find on my own; there have surely been others. Most of these bugs are not trivial, either; some of them caused crashes, and others, more insidiously, have been capable of silently causing data corruption without giving any outward warnings. Even once the bugs listed above are all fixed, it's difficult to be certain that there aren't going to turn out to be more data-corrupting edge cases that we simply haven't discovered yet because the Data type contains more magic than Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.
In addition, the panoply of implementations that Data may have makes it impossible to reason about its performance. Will processing a Data simply involve running through a memory buffer? Will it involve Objective-C message sends and/or autoreleases? Will it involve disk access? There is no way to tell without making a copy first. If Data is a simple type with one implementation, we can use it and know exactly what to expect, in cases where performance is important. In cases where it isn't, we can use the protocol.
There are other secondary hygienic improvements that could come from this as well, such as eliminating the current awkwardness that results when you have a DispatchData that you need to pass to a function that takes a Data, or vice-versa. By rewriting our functions to take a DataProtocol, this quickly becomes a non-issue.
Finally, separating out the slice types for Data (and DispatchData) would eliminate the land-mine that currently exists in the form of integer index subscripts, by which you can, for example, call [0..<4] to get the first four bytes of a Data which you don't realize is a slice. Depending on the slice range and the indexes used, this can result in a crash or, worse, silent data corruption.
At one point I asked the question of why Data was made to be its own slice, given the implementation difficulties that that has posed, and the answer given was that before this change was made, Data slices were scarcely used, because most of the frameworks require Data, and so developers were typically just copying the bytes every time. This is understandable, but I believe it is the wrong solution to the problem; basically we have a struct type—Data—which is doing the job of a protocol, by thinking like a class cluster.
In the most general sense your assertion that class clusters are nearly identical to protocols is on point. This is something we have talked about on the Foundation team at length about. There is one glitch to consider: collections. Granted NSString is nearly a match to the structure String and NSData is nearly a match to Data (modulo in both cases the mutability). Those two cases are discrete collections of known types. How would you suggest to tackle collections like NSArray? How could you express the type safe hints we expose from objc? I will be the first to admit Data has taken on some ambitious goals to say the least and perhaps has not met all of them out of the gate but the concept is able to mesh with the structural expectations. If we claim that NSArray (an immutable type) is just a RandomAccessCollection how can we expose the generic? Using Any even though is accurate it lacks the strong typing that swift developers expect.
Would this pitch perhaps infer that protocols can be generic? How can you deal with mutations? Self replacement? (That seems potentially error prone)
func foo<C: Collection>(bar: C) where C.Element == SomeType
this would allow someone to pass in a Collection that doesn't provide O(1) subscripting, right? Any guarantees that the original function made on time complexity go out the window, since they'd be thinking that they're working with an NSArray. Of course, we could add in a bunch of protocols that guarantee complexity for common operations and then constrain based on that, but then it would have to be done manually.
How would you suggest to tackle collections like NSArray? How could you express the type safe hints we expose from objc? I will be the first to admit Data has taken on some ambitious goals to say the least and perhaps has not met all of them out of the gate but the concept is able to mesh with the structural expectations. If we claim that NSArray (an immutable type) is just a RandomAccessCollection how can we expose the generic? Using Any even though is accurate it lacks the strong typing that swift developers expect.
As I said in the OP, to bridge Objective-C NSArray return types, we'd need to have generalized existentials in the language (something like RandomAccessCollection<String> or RandomAccessCollection<where Element == String> or whatever the syntax ends up being). I've understood generalized existentials to have been part of the long-term plan for some time. I'd be perfectly willing to put that part off to some point in the future and have such methods continue to return Array for the time being; however, I don't see any reason why NSArrayinput parameters could not be converted to generics tomorrow if we decided to do it.
Edit: missed this bit the first time around (apologies)
How can you deal with mutations?
The class cluster types that I'm concerned with are generally implemented in such a way that calling -copy on them results in an immutable object while simply returning the same object if it's already immutable; I'd just have the bridge call that at the border. If we have an immutable object, we don't have to worry about it.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here; do you mean the ability for Objective-C objects to return a different object from the -init method? In that case, we're dealing with Objective-C code, and we'd have to just do what Objective-C code has always had to do; trust that something that says it returns an NSWhatever is actually going to give us an NSWhatever. What else can we do? I'm pretty sure a misbehaving Objective-C method would already be able to crash the bridge.
this would allow someone to pass in a Collection that doesn’t provide O(1) subscripting, right? Any guarantees that the original function made on time complexity go out the window, since they’d be thinking that they’re working with an NSArray. Of course, we could add in a bunch of protocols that guarantee complexity for common operations and then constrain based on that, but then it would have to be done manually.
Objective-C APIs that take NSArrays already allow people to pass in collections that don't provide O(1) subscripting. The only thing you have to do to implement an (immutable) NSArray subclass is to implement -count and -objectAtIndex:; as for what the implementations of those two methods do and how they do it, pretty much anything goes. Heck, back when Distributed Objects was still a thing, it was possible for your NSArray parameter to involve network access. There are no guarantees whatsoever, and there never have been.
Furthermore, under the current regime, this goes both ways. I can't make any guarantees about the performance of Data, and that's a structure that's more likely to end up in performance-sensitive contexts than anything. Making the general cases protocol-oriented, and thus freeing up concrete types like Data to take on more well-defined characteristics, would make it easier to reduce these types of shenanigans, and the only cases where it may appear to do the opposite are cases that were already arbitrary.