4 ms·
On the contrary, it is vitally important. Go 1 was a stabilization of what we already had, not an occasion to introduce new features. If Go gets generics it w
by enneff 15y ago
On the contrary, it is vitally important.
Go 1 was a stabilization of what we already had, not an occasion to introduce new features.
If Go gets generics it will have a profound effect on the language and its libraries. better to introduce them in Go 2 once we know what they are and have a wealth of experience with them.
- soc88 15y agoDoes this make _any_ sense? Normally you introduce stuff having "profund effect"s on the whole ecosystem _before_ you release something as "stable". Maybe the Go devs want to repeat the Java generics story ...
- enneff 15y agoSure, we could have introduced generics (we have a pretty decent proposal in the works) and then tweaked it for another couple of years, but that wouldn't be fair to the thousands of Go programmers (including those at Google) who need to use Go in their day-to-day lives. As has been mentioned elsewhere, part of the problem with Java's generics story was that they needed to maintain backward compatibility at all costs. The same won't be true for Go 2, which may include support for generics. Go 1 is a solid product - language, standard library, and tools - and one we will support for years to come. There will be a time for experimenting with generics but that time isn't now. Why is everyone in such a rush?