5 ms·

This reads like sour grapes. Basically, this is trying to spin "Popular language missing essential feature" into "But what if it's because they're braintstormi

This reads like sour grapes. Basically, this is trying to spin "Popular language missing essential feature" into "But what if it's because they're braintstorming something EVEN BETTER???" Well, if they're brainstorming something better, then I'll wait to use your language until you solve all the basic problems first. Plus I think the language-obsession is usually cargo-culting and signaling. All good engineers I know use and enjoy several languages. The hipster/all-talk/buzzword engineers are the ones who insist on prototyping garbage in a new language every 6 weeks and dropping it entirely thereafter.

throwaway415415 8y ago
Lack of generics is a feature imo
grumpydba 8y ago
> Well, if they're brainstorming something better, then I'll wait to use your language until you solve all the basic problems first. Yet people can write distributed databases, monitoring tools, dns/DHCP servers in go. ANd they deliver stable and performant solutions with thousands of institutional users. How come, if the basics are not solved?
- rowanG077 8y ago
  That is a meaningless statement. You can do anything in (almost)any language that doesn't mean the basics are solved.
  - mirekrusin 8y ago
    They did pop up in short period of time and go projects are generally considered quite stable - how can you achieve those without "basics being solved"? IMHO basics is precisely what they did solve exceptionally well.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    The parent should have said, "Go is regularly used to ship..." instead of "Go can be used...". The fact that Go backs all sorts of complex, interesting software testifies that it has solved the basics extrememly well, and if you're going to argue for a definition of "the basics" which doesn't respect shipping software then your argument is self-defeating. "Generics" isn't an end unto itself, after all.
    - apta 8y ago
      > The parent should have said, "Go is regularly used to ship..." So does C, C++, Java, etc. That statement is meaningless. It just means that with enough contortion, you can write some code in golang that works. But that doesn't mean mean there aren't better, safer ways to write code. As others said, you can write large systems in C, but we still see the fallouts of using a very limited and unsafe language. And the funny things is, how do some of these larger projects get around golang's limititions? They write code generators to emulate mocking and generics, ending up with a weird mix of code that is difficult to manage. I saw this at my current employer, where they use golang for most of their backend. It's funny that I always think that even writing in Java would make the code base a lot more maintainable and even shorter and less verbose.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        > So does C, C++, Java, etc. That statement is meaningless. You're not following the conversation. The question is "Does Go solve 'the basics'?", not "Is Go better than C, C++, Java, etc?". I noted that Go solves 'the basics' for any meaningful definition of the term, as evidenced by regularly shipping useful software; I didn't claim that "regularly shipping useful software" makes it better than other languages. > And the funny things is, how do some of these larger projects get around golang's limititions? They write code generators to emulate mocking and generics, ending up with a weird mix of code that is difficult to manage. I saw this at my current employer, where they use golang for most of their backend. It's funny that I always think that even writing in Java would make the code base a lot more maintainable and even shorter and less verbose. This is a fallacy. A code generator is a pain in the ass to work around generics, but it's entirely possible and likely that the efficiencies gained by Go (versus Java or other candidate languages) more than justify the losses due to a code generator compared. It's also entirely possible and likely that people are throwing code generators at problems (like mocking) that don't require or benefit from code generators.
- Retra 8y ago
  You're being ungenerous. The way they are using "basics" implies that they don't have the basics they expect to have for the problems they want to solve. The fact that someone else has the ability to solve other problems using the tool is irrelevant, and only highlights that you have different expectations.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  I used to write full blown applications in Assembly as well.
  - grumpydba 8y ago
    With thousands of institutional users? Implementing distributed databases?
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      As much as old time mainframes and Novell NetWare based applications could have.
      - grumpydba 8y ago
        Then it was the proper choice, like go is today. I haven't heard about a lot of distributed databases in assembly.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Most successful distributed databases taking load at scale with powerful OLAP engines are written in C++, not Go.
        grumpydba 8y ago
        Indeed. However go does make some inroads there for oltp workloads or simple kv like etcd.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Not with anything comparable to ScyllaDB, RavenDB, Akka, Akka.NET, Orleans.
        grumpydba 8y ago
        Nobody uses ravendb or akka.
emersion 8y ago
>Popular language missing essential feature But is it an essential feature? I've written a lot of Go code and I'm perfectly fine without generics. It makes my code a lot simpler, no need to abstract everything into Thing<OtherThing implementing Stuff, YetOtherThing<Thingie implementing This or That>>. By the way, C doesn't have generics. If you really need generics that badly for your use-case, nothing stops you from using another language.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  I'm not super educated on this, but the example I'm asking is "How would you port the library lodash to your language without generics?"
  - weberc2 8y ago
    "Porting lodash" isn't an end unto itself, but you can use `interface{}` everywhere and have the same degree of type safety that lodash enjoys, which is to say zero.
    - nicoburns 8y ago
      You can also use lodash with TypeScript, and get a great deal more safety than that...
      - weberc2 8y ago
        Granted, but "lodash" is still a means and not an end.
- norswap 8y ago
  If you nitpick enough, nothing is essential. We can write everything in C, or heck, even assembly. "If you're not happy go look elsewhere" doesn't move the needle on the question "Should Go have generic" at all. It's not an argument at all.
  - 8y ago

throwaway415415 8y ago

Lack of generics is a feature imo

grumpydba 8y ago

> Well, if they're brainstorming something better, then I'll wait to use your language until you solve all the basic problems first. Yet people can write distributed databases, monitoring tools, dns/DHCP servers in go. ANd they deliver stable and performant solutions with thousands of institutional users. How come, if the basics are not solved?

rowanG077 8y ago
That is a meaningless statement. You can do anything in (almost)any language that doesn't mean the basics are solved.
- mirekrusin 8y ago
  They did pop up in short period of time and go projects are generally considered quite stable - how can you achieve those without "basics being solved"? IMHO basics is precisely what they did solve exceptionally well.
- weberc2 8y ago
  The parent should have said, "Go is regularly used to ship..." instead of "Go can be used...". The fact that Go backs all sorts of complex, interesting software testifies that it has solved the basics extrememly well, and if you're going to argue for a definition of "the basics" which doesn't respect shipping software then your argument is self-defeating. "Generics" isn't an end unto itself, after all.
  - apta 8y ago
    > The parent should have said, "Go is regularly used to ship..." So does C, C++, Java, etc. That statement is meaningless. It just means that with enough contortion, you can write some code in golang that works. But that doesn't mean mean there aren't better, safer ways to write code. As others said, you can write large systems in C, but we still see the fallouts of using a very limited and unsafe language. And the funny things is, how do some of these larger projects get around golang's limititions? They write code generators to emulate mocking and generics, ending up with a weird mix of code that is difficult to manage. I saw this at my current employer, where they use golang for most of their backend. It's funny that I always think that even writing in Java would make the code base a lot more maintainable and even shorter and less verbose.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      > So does C, C++, Java, etc. That statement is meaningless. You're not following the conversation. The question is "Does Go solve 'the basics'?", not "Is Go better than C, C++, Java, etc?". I noted that Go solves 'the basics' for any meaningful definition of the term, as evidenced by regularly shipping useful software; I didn't claim that "regularly shipping useful software" makes it better than other languages. > And the funny things is, how do some of these larger projects get around golang's limititions? They write code generators to emulate mocking and generics, ending up with a weird mix of code that is difficult to manage. I saw this at my current employer, where they use golang for most of their backend. It's funny that I always think that even writing in Java would make the code base a lot more maintainable and even shorter and less verbose. This is a fallacy. A code generator is a pain in the ass to work around generics, but it's entirely possible and likely that the efficiencies gained by Go (versus Java or other candidate languages) more than justify the losses due to a code generator compared. It's also entirely possible and likely that people are throwing code generators at problems (like mocking) that don't require or benefit from code generators.
Retra 8y ago
You're being ungenerous. The way they are using "basics" implies that they don't have the basics they expect to have for the problems they want to solve. The fact that someone else has the ability to solve other problems using the tool is irrelevant, and only highlights that you have different expectations.
pjmlp 8y ago
I used to write full blown applications in Assembly as well.
- grumpydba 8y ago
  With thousands of institutional users? Implementing distributed databases?
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    As much as old time mainframes and Novell NetWare based applications could have.
    - grumpydba 8y ago
      Then it was the proper choice, like go is today. I haven't heard about a lot of distributed databases in assembly.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Most successful distributed databases taking load at scale with powerful OLAP engines are written in C++, not Go.
        grumpydba 8y ago
        Indeed. However go does make some inroads there for oltp workloads or simple kv like etcd.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Not with anything comparable to ScyllaDB, RavenDB, Akka, Akka.NET, Orleans.
        grumpydba 8y ago
        Nobody uses ravendb or akka.

emersion 8y ago

>Popular language missing essential feature But is it an essential feature? I've written a lot of Go code and I'm perfectly fine without generics. It makes my code a lot simpler, no need to abstract everything into Thing<OtherThing implementing Stuff, YetOtherThing<Thingie implementing This or That>>. By the way, C doesn't have generics. If you really need generics that badly for your use-case, nothing stops you from using another language.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
I'm not super educated on this, but the example I'm asking is "How would you port the library lodash to your language without generics?"
- weberc2 8y ago
  "Porting lodash" isn't an end unto itself, but you can use `interface{}` everywhere and have the same degree of type safety that lodash enjoys, which is to say zero.
  - nicoburns 8y ago
    You can also use lodash with TypeScript, and get a great deal more safety than that...
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Granted, but "lodash" is still a means and not an end.
norswap 8y ago
If you nitpick enough, nothing is essential. We can write everything in C, or heck, even assembly. "If you're not happy go look elsewhere" doesn't move the needle on the question "Should Go have generic" at all. It's not an argument at all.
- 8y ago