3 ms·

I don't follow. The Arxiv link you provided lacks a single mention to the name you mentioned... and even without knowing him, I can believe you that Mr. Wadler

by fb03 4y ago

I don't follow. The Arxiv link you provided lacks a single mention to the name you mentioned... and even without knowing him, I can believe you that Mr. Wadler is probably a prominent and important type-theory researcher. But unless your argument is about a reverse ad hominem (citing an important name for the sake of "important person participated in this, cannot criticize design/execution"), I cannot see the point of this at all. Explaining further: When I mentioned "rushed", it was clear for most of us that "generics" appeared quite late in the Golang picture, and it did only rise in priority when they figured they were losing market share to 15yo+ languages because of this single design flaw. Also, as soon as it became a heated topic, the working group started racing to have it included as soon as possible. As early as Go 1.17. Then, in the last moment, it got pushed to 1.18 because several deep questions remained open. Why the need to race it so much for .17, I ask? They probably felt it was 'too late' so must get it out of the door as soon as possible, even build hype for it on .17 in several changelogs even though it was clearly not ready (and those who were following the working group discussions know that it would NEVER be done for the .17 release). Hope I was able to shed some light on the reasoning and word choices I had in my previous answer.

foldr 4y ago
>Then, in the last moment, it got pushed to 1.18 because several deep questions remained open. Delaying a feature to make sure that it's implemented correctly is the exact the opposite of rushing it! I think you are vastly overestimating the influence of internet message board drama on the actions of the Go core team. In any case, you provide no evidence to support your claims about their motivations. I'm not sure what happened with that Arxiv link, but here is another link to the paper I was thinking of: https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/fg/fg.pdf https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/fg/fg.pdf The fact that a leading researcher in type systems was a key participant in the effort suggests that this was a carefully thought through proposal (not necessarily perfect or beyond criticism, but not a rush job). Of course, if you think otherwise, you can point to any specific flaws in the paper. >reverse ad hominem The term you're looking for is 'argument from authority'. But argument from authority isn't really a fallacy. It's perfectly sensible to trust authorities, within reasonable limits.

by fb03 4y ago

foldr 4y ago

>Then, in the last moment, it got pushed to 1.18 because several deep questions remained open. Delaying a feature to make sure that it's implemented correctly is the exact the opposite of rushing it! I think you are vastly overestimating the influence of internet message board drama on the actions of the Go core team. In any case, you provide no evidence to support your claims about their motivations. I'm not sure what happened with that Arxiv link, but here is another link to the paper I was thinking of: https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/fg/fg.pdf https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/fg/fg.pdf The fact that a leading researcher in type systems was a key participant in the effort suggests that this was a carefully thought through proposal (not necessarily perfect or beyond criticism, but not a rush job). Of course, if you think otherwise, you can point to any specific flaws in the paper. >reverse ad hominem The term you're looking for is 'argument from authority'. But argument from authority isn't really a fallacy. It's perfectly sensible to trust authorities, within reasonable limits.