4 ms·
While the GP was a bit...harsh, the main reason people have that view is generics, as a problem space, were solved. Java's way was published years ago. As was
by gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
While the GP was a bit...harsh, the main reason people have that view is generics, as a problem space, were solved. Java's way was published years ago. As was .NET's. Other languages exist which have some form generics. The argument of "gather enough use cases to decide on the matter" feels like a punt given the use cases already exist and were known in the industry for the past 30 years.
- hu3 5y agoPerhaps. But in hindsight, Go's generics implementation turned different enough to warrant benefit of the doubt in my opinion. A notable difference is that Go interfaces are implicit while C# and Java are explicit and that affects Go generics.
- rob74 5y agoThe problem space may seem solved, but apparently it's still not as easy as it looks from the outside. You don't have to take my word for it, Cthulhu_ linked a comment by Russ Cox (a major contributor to Go) from a few years ago above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417 > We have spoken to a few true experts in Java generics and each of them has said roughly the same thing: be very careful, it's not as easy as it looks, and you're stuck with all the mistakes you make.
- gadflyinyoureye 5y agoI agree. From my Java experience most people don’t do a lot with them. List<Something> and the like. It makes things like boiler plate easier. I’m not saying it’s easy to implement. Rather the ideas are there and implementable. Typescript has them and it’s relatively young.