2 ms·

> I am applying that term to Go developers against generics no matter what. They are actively looking for something that doesn't suck. Aren't they? > C does p

> I am applying that term to Go developers against generics no matter what. They are actively looking for something that doesn't suck. Aren't they? > C does provide minimal support for generics since C11, with improvments planned for later standard revisions, as anyone that works predominantly in C should be aware. Not sure what was your intention behind that statement. But of course I'm aware of C11 Generics. And they might be nice for a generic min() and max() and similar but other than that honestly I have little use because types are not values and in C, types are not elevated to be much more than simply physical layout. Whenever I've tried to encode meaning in types in any language I've failed spectacularly. Feel free to make Oddintegers and Evenintegers all day long if that's what makes you happy. > And yes I am aware that I kind of reversed the meaning of the term, but that is how it feels all the Luddite arguments against generics. Let's get a life and not spend all of our time raging against people doing different things differently. At Google, I'm sure Go does solve real headaches they have with C++ ((re)compilation issues being only the worst offenders) and Python (performance...). And probably it does so better than any other language can. Because, Google is still primarily an engineering company, not a hipster company, nor a language-obsession company.

pjmlp 8y ago
> They are actively looking for something that doesn't suck. Aren't they? It looks more of "we are working on it excuse" to keep people at bay. Rob Pike has done a presentation last year where he stated that he doesn't have anything to do with it and is very sceptical of it being ever added. So WIP is kind of euphemism. > Not sure what was your intention behind that statement. That even languages born before generics are willing to move forward. Google is majorly a Java, Python, C++ shop. Go is usually more outside than internal Google projects. If we reduce Go lack of features to stuff that C doesn't provide, maybe bounds checking, modules and GC aren't required as well. As for complaining, projects like Docker and K8s ensure that those of us that rather not use Go, have to deal with it in some form anyway.
- jstimpfle 8y ago
  > If we reduce Go lack of features to stuff that C doesn't provide, maybe bounds checking, modules and GC aren't required as well. Well that was the initial basic design frame: A systems programming language that removes some of the headaches of writing distributed systems software with the use of a GC and Channels/CSP. It was intended from the start to have more features and tradeoffs than C has, and it even backed up pretty quickly from trying to be a competitor in the (not-distributed) systems programming space, didn't it? > That even languages born before generics are willing to move forward. C11 Generics are a pretty limited feature, basically a central switch on types instead of values. They are not a big deal. And maybe Go decided against them because Go has RTTI. In any case, C11 Generics are decidedly different from what many people expect from a Generics in Go. > As for complaining, projects like Docker and K8s ensure that those of us that rather not use Go, have to deal with it in some form anyway. Dude... 1) They are not Go. 2) If you don't like them don't deal with them. 3) Don't make an elephant from a mosquito. 4) Show us some of your beautiful systems software written in perfect OOP style in languages from 1975 already! We need real world proof that there is a supreme super-typesafe OOP way with functional bells that solves all of our problems!
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    C++ comes to mind. Also some would say that Go is actually from 1968. http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/

pjmlp 8y ago

> They are actively looking for something that doesn't suck. Aren't they? It looks more of "we are working on it excuse" to keep people at bay. Rob Pike has done a presentation last year where he stated that he doesn't have anything to do with it and is very sceptical of it being ever added. So WIP is kind of euphemism. > Not sure what was your intention behind that statement. That even languages born before generics are willing to move forward. Google is majorly a Java, Python, C++ shop. Go is usually more outside than internal Google projects. If we reduce Go lack of features to stuff that C doesn't provide, maybe bounds checking, modules and GC aren't required as well. As for complaining, projects like Docker and K8s ensure that those of us that rather not use Go, have to deal with it in some form anyway.

jstimpfle 8y ago
> If we reduce Go lack of features to stuff that C doesn't provide, maybe bounds checking, modules and GC aren't required as well. Well that was the initial basic design frame: A systems programming language that removes some of the headaches of writing distributed systems software with the use of a GC and Channels/CSP. It was intended from the start to have more features and tradeoffs than C has, and it even backed up pretty quickly from trying to be a competitor in the (not-distributed) systems programming space, didn't it? > That even languages born before generics are willing to move forward. C11 Generics are a pretty limited feature, basically a central switch on types instead of values. They are not a big deal. And maybe Go decided against them because Go has RTTI. In any case, C11 Generics are decidedly different from what many people expect from a Generics in Go. > As for complaining, projects like Docker and K8s ensure that those of us that rather not use Go, have to deal with it in some form anyway. Dude... 1) They are not Go. 2) If you don't like them don't deal with them. 3) Don't make an elephant from a mosquito. 4) Show us some of your beautiful systems software written in perfect OOP style in languages from 1975 already! We need real world proof that there is a supreme super-typesafe OOP way with functional bells that solves all of our problems!
- pjmlp 8y ago
  C++ comes to mind. Also some would say that Go is actually from 1968. http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/