4 ms·

That’s true, a binary tree isn’t a problem, it’s a tool for solving a certain class of problems. Since you can’t build reusable tools in pre-generic Go, (and, t

That’s true, a binary tree isn’t a problem, it’s a tool for solving a certain class of problems. Since you can’t build reusable tools in pre-generic Go, (and, to be honest, only a limited set of tools with Go’s new generic system), programmers are forced to reinvent half-baked ad-hoc solutions all over their code base. I once read an article about a C codebase that contained dozens (!) of specialized linked-list implementations. Large Go codebases, from everything I’ve seen, aren’t all that different.

hodgesrm 5y ago
Specialized collections are not necessarily bad. ClickHouse has dozens of hash table implementations, each tuned to a specific use case. It's what you do when you need something to go very fast.
- lanstin 5y ago
  And that is the exact joy of using a language like C or Go; you need to sort your things, just add in two pointers and make it a list you sort on. Eight or now sixteen extra bytes and you have a good tuned data structure. I don’t want to use a bunch of generic structures, I want to use the ones that solve my particular use case best.
  - eternityforest 5y ago
    I always say "Just right is all wrong". The time and standardization cost is often just too much for the small gains. I'd much rather have everything be reusable, abstracted, and one size fits all, aside from the tiny fraction that matters enough to optimize.
    - lanstin 5y ago
      Good points. But for myself, I like it when the structure of the code and data structures exactly fit the need. Like the old quite, “show me your header files and hide the C files, and I will understand your program.”
- jen20 5y ago
  Several specialised implementations of a concept with different algorithms is quite different to several implementations of the same algorithm because the language does not support their reasonable reuse. Rust gives you “specialised collections” via monomorphisation.

hodgesrm 5y ago

Specialized collections are not necessarily bad. ClickHouse has dozens of hash table implementations, each tuned to a specific use case. It's what you do when you need something to go very fast.

lanstin 5y ago
And that is the exact joy of using a language like C or Go; you need to sort your things, just add in two pointers and make it a list you sort on. Eight or now sixteen extra bytes and you have a good tuned data structure. I don’t want to use a bunch of generic structures, I want to use the ones that solve my particular use case best.
- eternityforest 5y ago
  I always say "Just right is all wrong". The time and standardization cost is often just too much for the small gains. I'd much rather have everything be reusable, abstracted, and one size fits all, aside from the tiny fraction that matters enough to optimize.
  - lanstin 5y ago
    Good points. But for myself, I like it when the structure of the code and data structures exactly fit the need. Like the old quite, “show me your header files and hide the C files, and I will understand your program.”
jen20 5y ago
Several specialised implementations of a concept with different algorithms is quite different to several implementations of the same algorithm because the language does not support their reasonable reuse. Rust gives you “specialised collections” via monomorphisation.