2 ms·

> It seems to me like generics are extremely important for "library code", and not super important for "application code" I find that it really depends a lot o

> It seems to me like generics are extremely important for "library code", and not super important for "application code" I find that it really depends a lot on the language you're working in, and how well it does generics. In Java, I don't use generics much beyond collections, streams, stuff like that. Whenever I try, I tend to trip over its relatively limited implementation of the concept. In a language like F#, on the other hand, generics are the cornerstone of my business domain modeling. They provide a way to map everything out in a way that is much more concise, readable, type-safe, and maintainable than I find to be possible in many other languages. I have yet to kick higher-kinded polymorphism's tires in a good context, but I can see where a good implementation of it would move things even further in that direction. (edit: Disclaimer: This isn't meant to be a statement on Go or the advisability of this proposal. Go isn't really meant for the kinds of applications where I've seen real benefit from generics.)

brundolf 6y ago
Whether you find yourself using them and whether they're actually necessary are two different things :) I've gotten use out of generics in "application code", but I've also been bewildered by overly-complex generics-within-generics-within-generics written by other people in application code. It's hard to be conclusive, but I wouldn't be surprised if they've done more harm than good across application contexts.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  > overly-complex generics-within-generics-within-generics To me, that's a shining example of the problems I've run myself into when trying to squeeze much power out of Java-style generics. I never seem to encounter similar problems in F#. Scala, it depends on how successful I am at not losing a boot in the mud. Generic programming was born in a language whose other pioneering features were algebraic data types and an HM type system. I've never really seen a first-rate example of one that didn't come paired with at least passable examples of the others.

brundolf 6y ago

Whether you find yourself using them and whether they're actually necessary are two different things :) I've gotten use out of generics in "application code", but I've also been bewildered by overly-complex generics-within-generics-within-generics written by other people in application code. It's hard to be conclusive, but I wouldn't be surprised if they've done more harm than good across application contexts.

mumblemumble 6y ago
> overly-complex generics-within-generics-within-generics To me, that's a shining example of the problems I've run myself into when trying to squeeze much power out of Java-style generics. I never seem to encounter similar problems in F#. Scala, it depends on how successful I am at not losing a boot in the mud. Generic programming was born in a language whose other pioneering features were algebraic data types and an HM type system. I've never really seen a first-rate example of one that didn't come paired with at least passable examples of the others.