5 ms·

Did you even read the blog post? Such feedback was explicitly asked for.

AaronFriel 9y ago
I think the problem everyone has swallowing that ask is that the value of generics is that it's so widely taught, with so many use cases, and so much literature (academic and otherwise) that the suggestion that they need use cases is laughable. What use cases do they need other than the extremely large body of public knowledge on the matter, and why would one more example change anyone's mind? To me this represents the epitome of the insular and outwardly hostile attitude that the Go team has toward good ideas elsewhere in the CS world. Would it really make a difference to the team if I or anyone else were to hunt down specific examples and present them with problems solved with generics and stronger type systems? I doubt it.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Off topic, but any chance UNI is your alma mater? I think we may have been there at the same time, judging by your name and some of your comments.
  - AaronFriel 9y ago
    Aye.
lomnakkus 9y ago
Asking for use cases when the use cases and benefits are already well-known seems pretty disingenuous to me. (Of both you and the blog post.) ... but, hey, just to indulge you, a few off the top of my head: - Generic containers in libraries (aka not built-in) - Parametricity to restrict user-supplied implementations of interfaces; not quite as valuable in a language with casts, etc., but still reasonably valuable. - To give a sound account for the currently-magic built-in types. That should be enough, frankly, but I'm sure I could come up with more if I were to spend 5 more minutes on it... Can we stop pretending that they don't know of any compelling use cases now?
- Spiritus 9y ago
  I was merely suggesting to indulge the author, especially now that generics might actually happen.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    The problem is that the community did indulge the author and the other Go maintainers 5 years ago and their was an apparent refusal to see lack-of-generics as an issue, almost as though Turing-completeness was sufficient justification to not include them. "Find us examples and show us so we can ponder this further" is incredibly condescending after we did that 5 years ago and they decided to stall (or to use the author's term, "wait") on the issue. Honestly I think it might be too late for generics to be added, because the large body of existing interfaces aren't generic and likely would have a very high transition cost.
    - lomnakkus 9y ago
      (A bit late to your comment, but I found it valuable:) It's actually a classic bulshitting tactic by people who have no actual argument. Effectively, it's "well, we'll defer a choice until we can PROVE that decision X is PERFECT in EVERY way." That's not to say: IF there's a real, quantifiable doubt, then by all means, continue to discuss (but preferably set time limits), but to do that you MUST set out precisely what the problems are, what potential solutions could (and couldn't) be, etc. etc. Not just vague "this feels wrong" objections.
- randomdata 9y ago
  There are many different ways to provide generics (templates, typeclasses, etc.), each with their own pros and cons. It's not simply a matter of "add generics". And what solution they do come up with is going to bring the given cons those who would be better served by a different generics solution. The Go team have been long criticized for choosing the option that fits Google, but not the rest of the world. This seems like their attempt to think about what others are doing with the language, beyond their insular experience, so they don't end up with something that fits Google perfectly but falls apart everywhere else. If they don't take the time to learn how people intend to use generics in Go, the best solution for Google, and Google alone, is what we will get.

I think the problem everyone has swallowing that ask is that the value of generics is that it's so widely taught, with so many use cases, and so much literature (academic and otherwise) that the suggestion that they need use cases is laughable. What use cases do they need other than the extremely large body of public knowledge on the matter, and why would one more example change anyone's mind? To me this represents the epitome of the insular and outwardly hostile attitude that the Go team has toward good ideas elsewhere in the CS world. Would it really make a difference to the team if I or anyone else were to hunt down specific examples and present them with problems solved with generics and stronger type systems? I doubt it.

weberc2 9y ago
Off topic, but any chance UNI is your alma mater? I think we may have been there at the same time, judging by your name and some of your comments.
- AaronFriel 9y ago
  Aye.

lomnakkus 9y ago

Asking for use cases when the use cases and benefits are already well-known seems pretty disingenuous to me. (Of both you and the blog post.) ... but, hey, just to indulge you, a few off the top of my head: - Generic containers in libraries (aka not built-in) - Parametricity to restrict user-supplied implementations of interfaces; not quite as valuable in a language with casts, etc., but still reasonably valuable. - To give a sound account for the currently-magic built-in types. That should be enough, frankly, but I'm sure I could come up with more if I were to spend 5 more minutes on it... Can we stop pretending that they don't know of any compelling use cases now?

Spiritus 9y ago
I was merely suggesting to indulge the author, especially now that generics might actually happen.
- cyphar 9y ago
  The problem is that the community did indulge the author and the other Go maintainers 5 years ago and their was an apparent refusal to see lack-of-generics as an issue, almost as though Turing-completeness was sufficient justification to not include them. "Find us examples and show us so we can ponder this further" is incredibly condescending after we did that 5 years ago and they decided to stall (or to use the author's term, "wait") on the issue. Honestly I think it might be too late for generics to be added, because the large body of existing interfaces aren't generic and likely would have a very high transition cost.
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    (A bit late to your comment, but I found it valuable:) It's actually a classic bulshitting tactic by people who have no actual argument. Effectively, it's "well, we'll defer a choice until we can PROVE that decision X is PERFECT in EVERY way." That's not to say: IF there's a real, quantifiable doubt, then by all means, continue to discuss (but preferably set time limits), but to do that you MUST set out precisely what the problems are, what potential solutions could (and couldn't) be, etc. etc. Not just vague "this feels wrong" objections.
randomdata 9y ago
There are many different ways to provide generics (templates, typeclasses, etc.), each with their own pros and cons. It's not simply a matter of "add generics". And what solution they do come up with is going to bring the given cons those who would be better served by a different generics solution. The Go team have been long criticized for choosing the option that fits Google, but not the rest of the world. This seems like their attempt to think about what others are doing with the language, beyond their insular experience, so they don't end up with something that fits Google perfectly but falls apart everywhere else. If they don't take the time to learn how people intend to use generics in Go, the best solution for Google, and Google alone, is what we will get.