3 ms·
Yes, the people who want generics are either people who don't use Go, or don't understand the purpose of Go and the implications of adding them to the language.
by ilovecaching 8y ago
Yes, the people who want generics are either people who don't use Go, or don't understand the purpose of Go and the implications of adding them to the language.
- artursapek 8y agoExactly. Say goodbye to fast compiles and easy-to-read code. Not to mention the muddy waters that will result from having both interfaces and generics together.
- frou_dh 8y agoJust imagine the peer-pressure strategies that must already be forming in community minds to deploy against Go 1.x loyalists :)
- stouset 8y agoGreat way here to completely discount the criticisms of people who've used the language and found it unacceptable how often you have to escape out of the type system of a "safe" language with `interface{}`.
- ilovecaching 8y agoI've written Go for three years, and I've successfully avoided using interface{}. It's a matter of architecting your application to fit the language and choosing a different language if your requirements grow beyond what Go can provide. Golang has made a tradeoff between simplicity and abstraction, which is a perfectly fine choice. Turning Go into Java is just going to ruin yet another language with complexity thanks to mob mentality.
- laumars 8y agoIt's not always that simple. Sometimes you cannot avoid using interface{}. There is a reason why some SQL libraries use interface{}, why (un)marshallers use interface{}, and why I use it heavily in my scripting interpreter which is written in Go.
- cmrdporcupine 8y agoThis is a rather elitist and blanket statement comment and is not at all fair. You do not know the mindset of "the people who want generics" but you're acting like you do to make a rhetorical point about how you feel about them. There are many more polite ways of making your case.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]