4 ms·
It took them 6 years to do it properly on top of an existing framework with the aim to maintain a crazy level of compatibility. They did so because they knew t
by josteink 9y ago
It took them 6 years to do it properly on top of an existing framework with the aim to maintain a crazy level of compatibility.
They did so because they knew the advantages to be massive. And so does everyone else at this point.
That golang decided to forego that wisdom when they started from scratch (and thus create a complex compatibility-story if they were to add it later) is entirely their own fault.
- msie 9y agoSo the Golang guys are in the same situation now, aren't they? Isn't it a bit unfair to fault them for not including generics from the beginning?
- josteink 9y ago> Isn't it a bit unfair to fault them for not including generics from the beginning? No. Because that would be much easier and was the only obvious answer. They took a shortcut, hoped nobody noticed and later when people started complaining about this obvious omission in a modern language, tried to weasel their way out of with some “complexity” bullshit and how “people wouldn’t understand”. So I can fault them for both not including it and then later being disenginious about why. For this glaring omission the golang designers deserve nothing but ridicule.