5 ms·
FWIW I actually agree about the generics, both that Go needs them and that bolting them on afterwards typically doesn't work as well as having them from the sta
by jbooth 15y ago
FWIW I actually agree about the generics, both that Go needs them and that bolting them on afterwards typically doesn't work as well as having them from the start. But in general I wouldn't call it "broken" and view being "not innovative enough" as a feature for a systems language.
- uriel 15y agoOne of the reasons Go still doesn't have generics is reluctance to 'bolt them on', and that the current language works surprisingly well without them. Of course that wont't stop people who have not written any Go code from claiming Go is worthless without them.
- bad_user 15y agoThat's a cheap shot. Here's the opinion of Andrei Alexandrescu: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kikut/think_in_go_gos_alternative_to_the/c2knaqk http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kikut/think_in_...
- uriel 15y agoYes, precisely the opinion of somebody that has not written anything in Go. Not to mention somebody quite biased given that Go has been way more successful in being used to build actual systems than Alexandrescu's D2.