5 ms·

Lack of generics was never part of "Go idealism". It has remained an open question for 9 years. It was added to the FAQ in 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20

Lack of generics was never part of "Go idealism". It has remained an open question for 9 years. It was added to the FAQ in 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20101123010932/http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101123010932/http://golang.org... Ian has been thinking about the problem for the past 7+ years, since even before Go1 was out, when the language was frozen. I think this is about the seventh generics design doc that Ian has written. (This time he wrote it with Robert.) They keep getting better. Hopefully this one holds up.

josefx 8y ago
> Lack of generics was never part of "Go idealism". It has remained an open question for 9 years. You should read less is exponentially more by Pike. He made it clear back then that he didn't see a need for generics and Go was explicitly written to be a replacement for C++ without all the unnecessary features. Not having generics was at least initially a core part in justifying the existance of Go, just like not having any form of exception handling ( they had to add panic recover quite early ).
- calcifer 8y ago
  You realize you are trying to explain Go's philosophy to one of the Go developers, right?
  - josefx 8y ago
    Are you claiming that Pike wasn't a core developer and driving force behind Go? Because my point is about the "never" being false when early statements quite clearly said something else.
    - calcifer 8y ago
      > Are you claiming that [...] No, I'm saying that the person you are replying to has no need of you reminding him of Pike's words, given that he actually knows Pike, unlike you.
      - josefx 8y ago
        So, just that I follow. Go guy claims historically never A. I point to Pikes blog which clearly said A. So given these two points I should implicitly discard evidence (in form of a blog entry by one of the Go creators) in favour of a statement that is clearly at odds with it? His connection to Pike or Go does not change the text on the blog, unless you disavow Pikes role in the creation of Go his distaste of generics and his clear classification of them as unnecessary remains a fact.

josefx 8y ago

> Lack of generics was never part of "Go idealism". It has remained an open question for 9 years. You should read less is exponentially more by Pike. He made it clear back then that he didn't see a need for generics and Go was explicitly written to be a replacement for C++ without all the unnecessary features. Not having generics was at least initially a core part in justifying the existance of Go, just like not having any form of exception handling ( they had to add panic recover quite early ).

calcifer 8y ago
You realize you are trying to explain Go's philosophy to one of the Go developers, right?
- josefx 8y ago
  Are you claiming that Pike wasn't a core developer and driving force behind Go? Because my point is about the "never" being false when early statements quite clearly said something else.
  - calcifer 8y ago
    > Are you claiming that [...] No, I'm saying that the person you are replying to has no need of you reminding him of Pike's words, given that he actually knows Pike, unlike you.
    - josefx 8y ago
      So, just that I follow. Go guy claims historically never A. I point to Pikes blog which clearly said A. So given these two points I should implicitly discard evidence (in form of a blog entry by one of the Go creators) in favour of a statement that is clearly at odds with it? His connection to Pike or Go does not change the text on the blog, unless you disavow Pikes role in the creation of Go his distaste of generics and his clear classification of them as unnecessary remains a fact.