3 ms·
> If it doesn't gain traction then the decisions made by Google are clearly considered the best approach I don't think this is necessarily true. There are a l
by remus 7y ago
> If it doesn't gain traction then the decisions made by Google are clearly considered the best approach
I don't think this is necessarily true. There are a lot of fuzzy factors that go in to making a language successful and it's tricky at best to get these right, even if openGo was a better language.
As a practical example, go effectively has one person who's full time job is keeping the testing infra happy. It'd take time and money to establish this in a go fork and going without it would make development of the fork much harder.
- bonesss 7y ago> It'd take time and money to [develop a language] Isn't that part of the fundamental conundrum though? If your need is so great, and so common, and so beneficial to get solved then the cost of development should be less than the benefits accrued, and smart business would bring that money and time to bear on the challenge and solve it. As Google has done with the main project... Saying there isn't time enough or money enough to solve the technical challenges sounds like saying those challenges aren't important, or valuable, enough to be prioritized. Which is to say our wallets are in agreement with Googles wallet on the issue of generics in Go. The considered 'best approach' from the community isn't the best technical approach to the technical issues, it's the best balance of pragmatic solutions for produced benefit (ie ROI), that create a sustainable project/product.