5 ms·

I hope this doesn't happen. I love golang because it is simple and easy to read. Both will go away when generic programmer start to write unreadable meta-progra

I hope this doesn't happen. I love golang because it is simple and easy to read. Both will go away when generic programmer start to write unreadable meta-programming class which "you don't need to understand, just use them". I admire golang devs for being opinionated and stand up for the core lines of their language so far. I see generic as renouncing these principles.

theli0nheart 7y ago
I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it seem. Generics greatly reduce the amount of code we need to read in exchange an slight increase in abstraction. In my opinion, the tradeoff is worth it, especially given that Go already has abstractions that are more difficult to grok than generics, which, all things considered, aren't that hard to understand.
- baby 7y ago
  It’s not worth it because most people tend to abuse them.
  - saturn_vk 7y ago
    do you have any statistics that can back your claim?
owaislone 7y ago
May be you could share feedback with us and the designers about which parts you think will be hard to understand? This is a valid concern but only way to address this is to specify and share as feedback to the proposal.
jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
This design does not permit metaprogramming.
tylerflick 7y ago
This. If I really need generics I'll use a different language.
- takeda 7y ago
  This reminds me the discussion about first version of iPhone how so many people were advocating why adding copy&paste functionality was a bad idea.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    Agreed. There are good objections to generics; this is not one of them. EDIT: If any Apple employees are reading this, I really wish autocorrect would stop confusing generics and generics. :)
  - theshrike79 7y ago
    More like people were advocating against the shitty Copy&Paste phones used to have. When it came out, it was possible to C&P pictures to emails and other fancy stuff that wasn't possible before.
    - takeda 7y ago
      I'm quite sure that was possible on android from the beginning.
- goatlover 7y ago
  Must every popular language evolve into C++ or Common Lisp?
  - snazz 7y ago
    I wonder if there's room for a language that is small, allows for nearly limitless abstraction, and still has great tooling. Go is (or, you could argue, was) small, and now has better tooling, but is just beginning to increase its ability to create abstractions. Common Lisp is large (only 200 pages fewer in its spec than C++, if I remember correctly), has unparalleled tooling (like the don't-unwind-the-stack debugging and SLIME), and really good abstraction power. Scheme is small and consistent (unlike CL), and also can create similarly advanced abstractions, but is missing some of the tooling that CL has enjoyed for eons. I'll be really cool to see a language that feels consistent, tight, well-engineered, and small; can create powerful abstractions similar to what can be achieved using CL macros and CLOS; and has an awesome debugger, editor interop, interactive programming with a REPL, build tools, etc.
icholy 7y ago
What are you on about? The current draft doesn't enable any type of meta-programming.

theli0nheart 7y ago

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it seem. Generics greatly reduce the amount of code we need to read in exchange an slight increase in abstraction. In my opinion, the tradeoff is worth it, especially given that Go already has abstractions that are more difficult to grok than generics, which, all things considered, aren't that hard to understand.

baby 7y ago
It’s not worth it because most people tend to abuse them.
- saturn_vk 7y ago
  do you have any statistics that can back your claim?

owaislone 7y ago

May be you could share feedback with us and the designers about which parts you think will be hard to understand? This is a valid concern but only way to address this is to specify and share as feedback to the proposal.

jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago

This design does not permit metaprogramming.

tylerflick 7y ago

This. If I really need generics I'll use a different language.

takeda 7y ago
This reminds me the discussion about first version of iPhone how so many people were advocating why adding copy&paste functionality was a bad idea.
- weberc2 7y ago
  Agreed. There are good objections to generics; this is not one of them. EDIT: If any Apple employees are reading this, I really wish autocorrect would stop confusing generics and generics. :)
- theshrike79 7y ago
  More like people were advocating against the shitty Copy&Paste phones used to have. When it came out, it was possible to C&P pictures to emails and other fancy stuff that wasn't possible before.
  - takeda 7y ago
    I'm quite sure that was possible on android from the beginning.
goatlover 7y ago
Must every popular language evolve into C++ or Common Lisp?
- snazz 7y ago
  I wonder if there's room for a language that is small, allows for nearly limitless abstraction, and still has great tooling. Go is (or, you could argue, was) small, and now has better tooling, but is just beginning to increase its ability to create abstractions. Common Lisp is large (only 200 pages fewer in its spec than C++, if I remember correctly), has unparalleled tooling (like the don't-unwind-the-stack debugging and SLIME), and really good abstraction power. Scheme is small and consistent (unlike CL), and also can create similarly advanced abstractions, but is missing some of the tooling that CL has enjoyed for eons. I'll be really cool to see a language that feels consistent, tight, well-engineered, and small; can create powerful abstractions similar to what can be achieved using CL macros and CLOS; and has an awesome debugger, editor interop, interactive programming with a REPL, build tools, etc.

icholy 7y ago

What are you on about? The current draft doesn't enable any type of meta-programming.