3 ms·
Especially when the implementation is completely different and have nothing in common with Swift. Go took the ADA route with incomplete type instantiation (with
by throw_m239339 6y ago
Especially when the implementation is completely different and have nothing in common with Swift. Go took the ADA route with incomplete type instantiation (with the bonus of type inference).
No, it's just people complaining about generics for the sake of it at that point.
- swagonomixxx 6y agoYeah, it's kind of interesting how two extreme camps have evolved out of the "controversial" decision not to include generics in Go 1.0: * Camp 1: generics will always be horrible, Go is right not to include it, it's too complex, Go is meant to be simple, etc. * Camp 2: I will never use Go because it doesn't have generics, serious languages have generics, etc. When in reality, both camps are pretty much wrong. Yes, generics are useful in a lot of places. But they also add no value in a lot of places. It's really on you to pick the tool you want to use. If you really want generics, pick C++ or Java instead. If you couldn't care less, Go is an option. It's much more fluid than this binarization of the topic has made it out to be.
- gher-shyu3i 6y agoThe issue is that the decision of which language to use at an employer is outside the control of the individual, so they're stuck with it.
- throw_m239339 6y agoOr Camp 3: Go is nice and I can't wait for generics to be included. It doesn't have to be either with or without.