3 ms·

Sure. But somebody writes it once and you can benefit from it. If you don't have operator overloading there isn't any chance of doing this. At any rate, I feel

Sure. But somebody writes it once and you can benefit from it. If you don't have operator overloading there isn't any chance of doing this. At any rate, I feel like the goalposts have been moved a bit. You originally said: But then you'll soon want to do A*B+C, and you'll find that fused multiply/add is a much faster operation than doing a multiplication and then addition, and soon you'll either be writing mul_add(A, B, C) anyway Which I just wanted to point out that you can fuse these operations with operator overloading as well. I am pretty sure that or you'll overengineer a complex solution to make A*B return some kind of object that can recognize the subsequent + operation etc. was a later edit, I don't remember reading it when I first reacted to your comment. If so, doing that is not really nice, since it breaks the flow of the reactions. At any rate, I think we agree on all the trade-offs. And typing the multiplication operator in HN syntax sucks :).

tsimionescu 3y ago
> I am pretty sure that > or you'll overengineer a complex solution to make AB return some kind of object that can recognize the subsequent + operation etc. > was a later edit, I don't remember reading it when I first reacted to your comment. If so, doing that is not really nice, since it breaks the flow of the reactions. I'm honestly not even sure. I had this in mind from the beginning, but I may have initially had a different vaguer comment about it and edited, I'm not sure. I sometimes edit comments right after posting them and then don't leave a note like I did for the later edit of the *s, since I assume no one read them. If this happened, I apologize. Either way, yes, I think we are mostly in agreement. I'm not actually a big fan of Go's minimalism, so I actually see the value of such constructs.
- microtonal 3y ago
  Yeah, happens to me sometimes as well. Writing starts thinking, leads to more writing.

tsimionescu 3y ago

> I am pretty sure that > or you'll overengineer a complex solution to make AB return some kind of object that can recognize the subsequent + operation etc. > was a later edit, I don't remember reading it when I first reacted to your comment. If so, doing that is not really nice, since it breaks the flow of the reactions. I'm honestly not even sure. I had this in mind from the beginning, but I may have initially had a different vaguer comment about it and edited, I'm not sure. I sometimes edit comments right after posting them and then don't leave a note like I did for the later edit of the *s, since I assume no one read them. If this happened, I apologize. Either way, yes, I think we are mostly in agreement. I'm not actually a big fan of Go's minimalism, so I actually see the value of such constructs.

microtonal 3y ago
Yeah, happens to me sometimes as well. Writing starts thinking, leads to more writing.