I think that at lot of these pollute the global scope unnecessarily or incorrectly, and many of them are semantically incorrect. It's also a massive framework t

I think that at lot of these pollute the global scope unnecessarily or incorrectly, and many of them are semantically incorrect. It's also a massive framework that doesn't address a specific concern. It would be better packaged as a collection of μframeworks. Some specific issues: > Easily access your ViewController on top of your view stack: let topOfMyViewStack = topMostVC UIKit supports an arbitrary number of windows, so "your view stack" is not something that is definable. > Easily access your screen width & height: print(screenWidth) // 375.0 on iPhone6 print(screenHeight) // 667.0 on iPhone6 Which screen? iOS supports multiple screens - there's a reason that these things are scoped to instance properties of UIScreen. > Easily run block of code: let myBlock = { print("lol") } runThisBlock(myBlock) You can just call it directly with myBlock() - which the implementation presumably does. > Easily convert between different types: var myDouble = myInt.toDouble Double(myInt) isn't really hard, and the "easy" version is more characters. > Easily access ViewController sizes: View controllers do not have sizes - views do. I don't want to rag on the author too much, but I'd also like to add something about the tagline "How Swift standard types and classes were supposed to work". This seems needlessly offensive and incorrect - in all likelihood, Chris Lattner is smarter (or at least more educated on the subject) than you - or me! There's no need to say that he's doing his work incorrectly. Instead, a tagline like "useful extensions for the Swift Standard Library, Foundation, and UIKit" wouldn't imply that the Swift team wasn't doing their job. Save that for complaining about the inability to define a Monad protocol.