4 ms·

So in your opinion, should Go also not have generics for maps and channels (as they effectively do today), or are those also one of a kind data structures that

So in your opinion, should Go also not have generics for maps and channels (as they effectively do today), or are those also one of a kind data structures that are worthy of generics? The designers of Go recognized that generic type parameters are necessary.. it’s just that they decided to only bestow them on a few types in the standard library instead of designing a general solution.

quadcore 5y ago
So in your opinion, should Go also not have generics for maps and channels (as they effectively do today), or are those also one of a kind data structures that are worthy of generics? Thats exactly the proper dichotomy. Those choices were made by great language designers, not by programmers. Generics are some type of macros, of course they are useful. In some rare, very sensible cases, where the added complexity is really worth it. In the hands of programmers eager to show how smart they are, they are deadly. Code reviewers all around the world are gonna be like "why dont you use generics here?" just because they can. Bloated code, everywhere. Go was a niche language suitable for 10x programming. It was modern C. Not C++, not java, not C#, not F#. It was C. The extraordinary, unexpected, return of C. You could write a modern server in C. You could write a modern application in C. It was amazing. It's now victim of its success and might become an industry language. As I mentionned, the grammar being changed, it's literally a new language that's being born. Go++ is being born. Why would you terminate a language which in 12 years has become one of the top 5 choices on the server? This is not a sensible choice. This is not the choice of the hackers. This is the industry putting its dirty paws on a great piece of technology.
- ackfoobar 5y ago
  > Go was a niche language suitable for 10x programming. At first I read this as "suitable for programmers who are 10x more productive than average ones". But they must be able to judge when/how to use generics. Do you mean programming with 10x more code, or 10x more developers?

So in your opinion, should Go also not have generics for maps and channels (as they effectively do today), or are those also one of a kind data structures that are worthy of generics? The designers of Go recognized that generic type parameters are necessary.. it’s just that they decided to only bestow them on a few types in the standard library instead of designing a general solution.

quadcore 5y ago

So in your opinion, should Go also not have generics for maps and channels (as they effectively do today), or are those also one of a kind data structures that are worthy of generics? Thats exactly the proper dichotomy. Those choices were made by great language designers, not by programmers. Generics are some type of macros, of course they are useful. In some rare, very sensible cases, where the added complexity is really worth it. In the hands of programmers eager to show how smart they are, they are deadly. Code reviewers all around the world are gonna be like "why dont you use generics here?" just because they can. Bloated code, everywhere. Go was a niche language suitable for 10x programming. It was modern C. Not C++, not java, not C#, not F#. It was C. The extraordinary, unexpected, return of C. You could write a modern server in C. You could write a modern application in C. It was amazing. It's now victim of its success and might become an industry language. As I mentionned, the grammar being changed, it's literally a new language that's being born. Go++ is being born. Why would you terminate a language which in 12 years has become one of the top 5 choices on the server? This is not a sensible choice. This is not the choice of the hackers. This is the industry putting its dirty paws on a great piece of technology.

ackfoobar 5y ago
> Go was a niche language suitable for 10x programming. At first I read this as "suitable for programmers who are 10x more productive than average ones". But they must be able to judge when/how to use generics. Do you mean programming with 10x more code, or 10x more developers?