4 ms·
Yeah, I wish go had more functional stuff, like .map(), .filter(), etc. On the other hand I enjoy that when I pickup a package someone wrote there is not a bun
by jopsen 9y ago
Yeah, I wish go had more functional stuff, like .map(), .filter(), etc.
On the other hand I enjoy that when I pickup a package someone wrote there is not a bunch of different meta-programming using templates.
Generics sometimes lead people (including myself) to over-engineer solutions... usually because we want as much compile safety as possible. But at what cost in complexity.
- erik_seaberg 9y agoI'd rather read x.filter().map() than read the loops someone had to expand them into by hand.
- ryanplant-au 9y agoI groan every time I have to implement the 15th type-specific loop implementation of what I'd do with a single map or fold in Ruby/Elm/Haskell/JS/TS/Crystal/every other language I use. It's not a lot of effort but it's a lot of mess and cruft.
- cube2222 9y agoCheck out goderive
- z0r 9y agolinking this for you: https://github.com/awalterschulze/goderive https://github.com/awalterschulze/goderive i wish i could laugh, but i can't. the lengths people will go to work within such an impoverished language, and by means so antithetical to the go philosophy.