3 ms·
That statement doesn’t disagree with my comment. There are also plenty of comments online from Cox saying he isn’t against implementing generics, they just wan
by hnlmorg 2y ago
That statement doesn’t disagree with my comment.
There are also plenty of comments online from Cox saying he isn’t against implementing generics, they just want time to do it properly.
- pjmlp 2y ago"Do it properly" is an educated way in office politics to hand wave issues. There are enough discussions on go-nuts on the contrary, plus it isn't as if there wasn't enough examples to choose from, between 1976 and 2009.
- hnlmorg 2y agoNot always. And the fact that Go now has generics should be evidence enough that Cox was always open to the idea of generics even if he didn’t feel rushed into implementing it.
- pjmlp 2y agoCox is not the founding team, and Rob Pike has publicly expressed he is not happy with the generics decision, but it wasn't his decision to take. "Sydney Golang Meetup - Rob Pike - Go 2 Draft Specifications" https://youtu.be/RIvL2ONhFBI?t=1018 https://youtu.be/RIvL2ONhFBI?t=1018 (starts here) https://youtu.be/RIvL2ONhFBI?t=1892 https://youtu.be/RIvL2ONhFBI?t=1892 (he expresses his opinion here)
- hnlmorg 2y agoPike isn’t the final word on Go either. Hence why we have generics. I don’t really understand why you’re arguing about this. Go has generics now, isn’t it about time you moved onto a new soapbox?
- mardifoufs 2y agoI think they are just addressing this statement you made earlier: >The Go designers were never against generics (Fwiw I think I agree with both of you in this situation)
- pjmlp 2y agoDoesn't change the fact that the original authors weren't into generics, let's stop rewriting history here. Don't worry, Go still has lots of stuff to complain about.