5 ms·
To be fair, Swift is on another level, and doesn't strive for Go's rather relentless minimalism. Go, even with these additions, would be a lot smaller than Swif
by atombender 8y ago
To be fair, Swift is on another level, and doesn't strive for Go's rather relentless minimalism. Go, even with these additions, would be a lot smaller than Swift, which was intentionally designed around rich, complex abstractions, including generics and compile-time type constraints, from the start.
Of course, Swift didn't exactly pioneer these concepts. Scala, C# and Haskell also provide compile-time type constraints that are heavily based on generics, and these languages also influenced Swift.
- jjtheblunt 8y agoIt's always been "curious" that Swift never credited Scala, I thought.
- thayne 8y agoMy impression when I first saw swift code was "wow, that looks a lot like scala".
- weego 8y agoAnecdotally as a mostly full time scala dev, swift has been the easiest "I'm bored this weekend I'll pick up a new language for side projects" I can remember.
- pjmlp 8y agoBecause these concepts are older than Scala and both languages inspired from the same sources?
- eternalban 8y ago"Go's rather relentless minimalism." Semantic minimalism, yes. But the produced artifacts are not "minimal". Go is something like IKEA of PLs, making hay with a "minimal" set of elements to play with. But there is only so far you can take plywood. And above is not a negative critique. It is a good niche to be in. But this effort for Go 2 to move upmarket (in PL land) using the plywood foundation is rather worrisome.