7 ms·
https://golang.org/LICENSE https://golang.org/LICENSE
by limsup 10y ago
https://golang.org/LICENSE https://golang.org/LICENSE
- mattnewton 10y agoRight, so now I'm forking it and maintaining my own language to add a feature I just get for free in any number of reasonable competitors..
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoRust is ready, free, and open. Use it and stop complaining about Go.
- mattnewton 10y agoIn my case it's python, Rust has a bit more of a learning curve / productivity hit. I'm still complaining though because I like what Go is doing with concurrency and simplicity, but I think it would be almost perfect if it just trusted the user a bit more.
- woah 10y agoYou say you like the simplicity, yet you are complaining about it.
- mattnewton 10y agoBesides the fact that I think it's less simple to have ad-hoc compiler extensions for the standard library types that can't be replicated in userspace, so the alternatives are code generation and type erasure, it doesn't have to be an absolute principal! We can have generics without sliding towards some slippery slope of abstraction! You don't allow some kind of generics one day and wake up the next day with custom operators and monads. The buck really can stop at this one pain point.
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoOkay, that's nice, but the Go developers already picked their side in the debate many years ago. If you don't like it, use one of the many other tools available.
- stcredzero 10y agoI think it would be almost perfect if it just trusted the user a bit more. If it trusted the user just a bit more, it would be making many of the same mistakes other languages make, which Go is trying to avoid. You're free to go and use some of those other languages.
- mattnewton 10y agoI don't understand this attitude. I do use other languages, and I can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake. Complicated architectures full of abstraction are a mistake, which you can limit without sacrificing the ability for me to make a type-safe generic function.
- stcredzero 10y agoI can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake. It's a particular trade-off. Some opine that it's not the right trade off. You disagree. Complicated architectures full of abstraction are a mistake, which you can limit without sacrificing the ability for me to make a type-safe generic function. From what I've seen, the other mechanisms for limiting over-exuberant abstraction don't work well enough over the long term, at scale.
- pcwalton 10y ago> From what I've seen, the other mechanisms for limiting over-exuberant abstraction don't work well enough over the long term, at scale. Can you name a specific example of people using ML-style generics (i.e. no typeclasses, no module system) to achieve "over-exuberant abstraction"?
- stcredzero 10y agoNope. You got me there. I'm not so sure that would be cheap to implement in Golang, though. Also, your comment prompted me to find and read this: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/templates.html http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/templates.html
- commentzorro 10y agoRust has manual memory management. Most applications where you'd use Go don't need nor want the added complexity of managing memory, ownership, learning curve, etc. It's not really a reasonable exchange.
- quotemstr 10y agoWell, that's how C++ started. I'm honestly surprised nobody's forked Go or made a less obnoxiously opinionated front-end.
- j_s 10y agoOden: experimental, statically-typed functional language, built for Go ecosystem https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11183836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11183836
- mattnewton 10y agoThanks for the link, this looks pretty cool. Like Scala was on the JVM, this could be a sort of escape hatch for some people on the team.
- twblalock 10y agoI think you overestimate the number of people who care that much about Go. It's not very widely used. It would also be a massive effort to add generics to it at this point, because of the design choices the team made early on.
- giovannibajo1 10y agoNot sure what counts for "widely used", but it's now in the top20 TIOBE: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
- zzzcpan 10y ago> It would also be a massive effort to add generics to it at this point Not really. The easiest approach would take like a day for PoC.
- twblalock 10y agoWhat approach would that be?
- owaislone 10y agoSo you want other people to maintain something for you and do it the way you like? Obviously, it's not simple to just fork a project like Go and maintain it but the point is that it is not legally impossible. A group of people inclined enough to "fix" Go for themselves are completely free to do so. BTW, you might be interested in https://oden-lang.org/ https://oden-lang.org/
- mattnewton 10y agoNo, I want the language to have a standard way to extend it that's compatible with the core. Generics is a standard way to do type polymorphism without having the ship people another compiler.
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoWell, the Go developers and most of its real users (not bloggers who dabble) don't want to go this route. So seek your solution elsewhere.
- commentzorro 10y ago> So seek your solution elsewhere. Yeah, how dare he have an opinion that runs counter to the known truth. He has attacked the Body. He is not one with Landru.
- rectang 10y agoSomething we're slowly coming to terms with is the consequence of having open source without open governance. It's not clear to me that the language would be better if the project stewards accepted more feature requests, though. It is incredibly difficult to hold the line against feeping creatures and a noisy minority when the benefit of simplicity is diffuse.
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoforks are free, stop waiting for other people to do your work for you