2 ms·

As was mentioned before, you can absolutely do the same thing in Go that you see in lodash by giving up type-safety which javascript doesn't have anyway!.

• sanderjd 11y ago
  I actually saw that post right after I wrote the one you just responded to. While it's definitely true, what makes it more awkward in Go is the necessity to translate back and forth between the "traditionally typed" and "unityped" dialects of the language. I'm not (only) referring to performance here, but ergonomics. Because javascript is unityped everywhere, a unityped implementation of those sorts of functions is natural, but because Go is mostly type-based, it is less natural and more boilerplate-y to pass and return `interface{}` everywhere. Nonetheless, it's a good point.
• spion 11y ago
  Or you don't give up type safety. TypeScript compiles really fast and has generics.
  • burntsushi 11y ago
    I'm not familiar with TypeScript, but since it compiles to Javascript, I imagine it's using type erasure. Indeed, such an implementation of generics is easy to compile quickly. If one adopted such a scheme in Go (which would also be fast to compile), you'd end up sacrificing a great deal of runtime performance, because everything generic would be forced behind a box. Such a thing is no big deal in a language like Javascript, but for a language like Go that aims to be fastish, it's probably a non-starter. Finding a compiler that monomorphizes generics and is also as fast as Go is probably a much harder challenge. I've had some folks claim that one of D's compilers is pretty fast, but I haven't seen any good benchmarks to support that claim. Many of the other monomorphizing implementations I've tried (Ocaml, ML, Haskell, Rust) are all pretty slow. At least, much slower than Go's compiler in my own experience.