Michael TsaiVerified account

@mjtsai @jckarter If framework authors used classes because clients are more comfortable and able to monkey patch, I think that’d be sad

@mjtsai @jckarter AFAIK protocols would allow the most of same sorts of custom extending desired, and are explicitly designed to be so

@concreteniche @jckarter Probably not as flexible. And changing classes to protocols doesn’t make the design/thinking issues go away.

@mjtsai @concreteniche You can easily wrap a conforming type and patch or completely replace its conformance if you need to.

@jckarter @concreteniche Yes, but patching from the outside is limited because you can’t override anything that’s not in the protocol.

@mjtsai @concreteniche The client also can't *use* anything that's not in the protocol. The interface goes both ways.

@jckarter @mjtsai @concreteniche … the developer's implementation would de facto always have the last say on behavior.

@danielpunkass @jckarter @concreteniche I think in practice protocols would intentionally not have enough surface area.