4 ms·

"go generate" is an half assed macro feature that shouldn't even part of any modern language. Even C has better macro... And it has absolutely nothing to do wi

"go generate" is an half assed macro feature that shouldn't even part of any modern language. Even C has better macro... And it has absolutely nothing to do with genericity, your argument is a fallacy. If Go really wanted to be open, then Go designers should just have created a virtual machine and let everybody code their own language on top. Go right now is just basically C with garbage collection. Only C developers love that, and Go designers are well aware that it is an hindrace to adoption in enterprise. The pressure to change seldom comes from the community at large, but Google itself and big corps using Go.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> "go generate" is an half assed macro feature that shouldn't even part of any modern language. Agreed. > And it has absolutely nothing to do with genericity, your argument is a fallacy. In arguments against adding generics, it's been cited numerous times that you can achieve similar code reuse via macros. It's been a while since I looked at the awfulness of `go generate` so I'm not going to attempt to demonstrate the equivalency with that syntax, but here's how you'd achieve something similar to genericity with macros in C: Instead of: T swap<T>(T* left, T* right) { T temp = left; *left = *right; *right = temp; } ... int a = 1, b = 2; char c = 'c', d = 'd'; swap<int>(&a, &b); swap<char>(&c, &d); You do: #declare_swap_function(T) T swap_ ## T(T* left, T* right) {\ T temp = left;\ *left = *right;\ *right = temp;\ } ... declare_swap_function(int); declare_swap_function(char); ... int a = 1, b = 2; char c = 'c', d = 'd'; swap_int(&a, &b); swap_char(&c, &d); So, macros do have something to do with genericity. Macros are certainly a crappy way to achieve genericity, however, especially since the original reason go didn't include generics was to compile in a single pass, and adding a preprocessor adds another pass. It's clear you were ignorant here. That's fine--I don't expect you to know everything. But I think it's reasonable to expect that if you don't know what someone is talking about, you approach the conversation with some humility and ask questions before accusing someone of a logical fallacy. Ignorance is fine, arrogance isn't.

kerkeslager 6y ago

> "go generate" is an half assed macro feature that shouldn't even part of any modern language. Agreed. > And it has absolutely nothing to do with genericity, your argument is a fallacy. In arguments against adding generics, it's been cited numerous times that you can achieve similar code reuse via macros. It's been a while since I looked at the awfulness of `go generate` so I'm not going to attempt to demonstrate the equivalency with that syntax, but here's how you'd achieve something similar to genericity with macros in C: Instead of: T swap<T>(T* left, T* right) { T temp = left; *left = *right; *right = temp; } ... int a = 1, b = 2; char c = 'c', d = 'd'; swap<int>(&a, &b); swap<char>(&c, &d); You do: #declare_swap_function(T) T swap_ ## T(T* left, T* right) {\ T temp = left;\ *left = *right;\ *right = temp;\ } ... declare_swap_function(int); declare_swap_function(char); ... int a = 1, b = 2; char c = 'c', d = 'd'; swap_int(&a, &b); swap_char(&c, &d); So, macros do have something to do with genericity. Macros are certainly a crappy way to achieve genericity, however, especially since the original reason go didn't include generics was to compile in a single pass, and adding a preprocessor adds another pass. It's clear you were ignorant here. That's fine--I don't expect you to know everything. But I think it's reasonable to expect that if you don't know what someone is talking about, you approach the conversation with some humility and ask questions before accusing someone of a logical fallacy. Ignorance is fine, arrogance isn't.