4 ms·
> And Go people's common refusal to look much further, and especially not into academia.. I don't think that's a fair statement, given Phil Wadler's formal wor
by gstipi 6y ago
> And Go people's common refusal to look much further, and especially not into academia..
I don't think that's a fair statement, given Phil Wadler's formal work on generics in Go - "Featherweight Go" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710) - which is acknowledged here: https://blog.golang.org/generics-next-step https://blog.golang.org/generics-next-step
- eru 6y agoYes, hence my weasel word with 'common' and 'most'. It's good to see that they are taking the likes of Phil Wadler serious. (Perhaps his beard helps?) > We’d like to thank Philip Wadler and his collaborators for thinking formally about generics in Go and helping us clarify the theoretical aspects of the design. In the older post at https://blog.golang.org/why-generics https://blog.golang.org/why-generics you still see them pretty much mix up parametric polymorphism and ad-hoc polymorphism. Thanks for the link to the paper!