3 ms·
I've been coding for decades. I've written large scale systems in functional languages. I was a believer, but after many years of experience, I didn't find it t
by jshen 5y ago
I've been coding for decades. I've written large scale systems in functional languages. I was a believer, but after many years of experience, I didn't find it to add a whole lot of value. I didn't find that there were fewer bugs as promised, it wasn't faster to develop and ship features, and most importantly, it was hard to jump into other peoples code and make sense of it.
You might have a different opinion, that's fine, you have tons of languages that work the way you want. That's what diversity is for. Yet so many of you want to remove that diversity for a reason that I don't understand. There is no science that has proved which of us is right, so the best option in my opinion is to let diversity flourish. I can't understand why you all are against that.
- pjmlp 5y agoApparently the Go team has themselves admitted that we are right and they were wrong. Go is open source, create your own fork without generics and lets see which version keeps going.
- jshen 5y agoWe must be talking past each other, and maybe we don't disagree all that much. I'm not talking about generics in this form, and I think the Go team did a good job in their approach and implementation. However, you can read in this thread many people that are demanding more, specifically with the generics implementation. It's not good enough because you can't create monads, do purely functional programming, etc. I'm hopeful that this implementation is hitting the sweat spot, and that the Go team won't chase the demands to make Go like many of the other languages. I think the biggest win for Go is not having class based inheritance. Fortunately, I haven't seen anyone demanding that.