4 ms·

Is anyone actually mad about this, or do people just bring it up to stir the pot? Who cares what the FAQ says? They've worked out a way to add it easily in a ba

Is anyone actually mad about this, or do people just bring it up to stir the pot? Who cares what the FAQ says? They've worked out a way to add it easily in a backwards compatible way that can solve some problems. They had not identified this solution at the time they wrote the FAQ, and Go has been perfectly usable without this feature for 16 years.

stouset 5mo ago
We care that time and time again, when anyone ever brings up a criticism of the language, they’re told that everything is just fine and it’s not a problem and we just don’t get the Go Philosophy. There’s not a problem, stop trying to make Go like every other language, and changing things would make the language more complicated and worse. Then when the language is inevitably changed for the better, resolving the complaint, suddenly it was always going to happen and it was just a matter of getting the details right. Every other language community I can think of is more than willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of their language. “Yeah, this kind of sucks in principle but it’s not something that gets in the way in practice” is a fine perspective. So is “this was a tradeoff; we went in this direction and these are the resulting downsides”. But the golang community practically trips over themselves to constantly argue that obvious shortcomings in the language are actually a good thing and we just don’t get it. Nobody is saying the language shouldn’t improve. We’ve all been begging the language to improve. But we’re also tired of the constant, obvious, and shameless gaslighting from the community whenever things do get better. You aren’t going to like the comparison, but it’s extremely Trumpian.
- jamesfinlayson 5mo ago
  Yeah, I worked with a guy in the late 2010s - one of the most painful people I've ever worked with - who would tell anyone that would listen that Go (as it was in 2018) was the perfect programming language - it had all the features you'd ever need - no more, no less. It doesn't need generics, the package management story is fine etc. Thankfully he's been out of my life for a long time now but I believe he's still writing Go, and I bet that he's telling anyone that will listen that Go (as it is in 2026) is the perfect programming language and that its implementation of generics was necessary and perfect etc. He wasn't the only one but he certainly took it to the extreme.
  - piekvorst 5mo ago
    This is an outlier. The Go team and community never endorsed that. In fact, their position has always been the opposite. To give just one example, see [1]. [1]: https://research.swtch.com/dogma https://research.swtch.com/dogma
    - stouset 5mo ago
      I think it’s pretty clear this post was a response to the clear dogma within the community. > But we need help from everyone. Remember that none of the decisions in Go are infallible; they’re just our best attempts at the time we made them, not wisdom received on stone tablets.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
jaxlfkkgken 5mo ago
[flagged]
tines 5mo ago
I'm not mad, I'm a proponent of stronger type systems. I'm just correcting the record about > They didn't say they never wanted to do generics, but that they did want to take their time and do them right.
- piekvorst 5mo ago
  What’s the correction? The two claims are not in conflict. Saying “we don’t expect to ever add X” is not equivalent to “we never wanted to add X.” It simply means that they didn’t think it would happen, which can coexist with an underlying willingness to consider it if a suitable approach appeared.
  - tines 5mo ago
    You added the word "want", the OP said "need". "We don't ever expect to add X" implies "we don't think we need X."
    - foldr 5mo ago
      Clearly we don’t need this feature. Just because the Go team decides to implement a feature doesn’t imply that they must think that the language needs the feature. You’re searching for contradictions where none exist.
      - tines 5mo ago
        Ah, then they’re implementing needless features! What’s worse! lol
        foldr 5mo ago
        Most programming language features are not strictly needed. They’re just quality of life improvements that are on balance a good addition to the language.
        4mo ago
the_gipsy 5mo ago
You just can never trust what the go team says.
- Matl 5mo ago
  Yeah, because software is not meant to evolve and people are not meant to either.
  - the_gipsy 5mo ago
    You're not meant to gaslight about the evolution of software.
    - array_key_first 5mo ago
      Changing your mind is not gaslighting, people just change their mind sometimes.
      - the_gipsy 5mo ago
        It's not this one thing, it's that yhey consistently do this
    - kunley 5mo ago
      You're not meant to apply poor man's psychology everywhere just because you have heard about a certain psychological term.
      - the_gipsy 5mo ago
        It's a perfectly good term for the overall and historical attitude of the go dev team.

stouset 5mo ago

We care that time and time again, when anyone ever brings up a criticism of the language, they’re told that everything is just fine and it’s not a problem and we just don’t get the Go Philosophy. There’s not a problem, stop trying to make Go like every other language, and changing things would make the language more complicated and worse. Then when the language is inevitably changed for the better, resolving the complaint, suddenly it was always going to happen and it was just a matter of getting the details right. Every other language community I can think of is more than willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of their language. “Yeah, this kind of sucks in principle but it’s not something that gets in the way in practice” is a fine perspective. So is “this was a tradeoff; we went in this direction and these are the resulting downsides”. But the golang community practically trips over themselves to constantly argue that obvious shortcomings in the language are actually a good thing and we just don’t get it. Nobody is saying the language shouldn’t improve. We’ve all been begging the language to improve. But we’re also tired of the constant, obvious, and shameless gaslighting from the community whenever things do get better. You aren’t going to like the comparison, but it’s extremely Trumpian.

jamesfinlayson 5mo ago
Yeah, I worked with a guy in the late 2010s - one of the most painful people I've ever worked with - who would tell anyone that would listen that Go (as it was in 2018) was the perfect programming language - it had all the features you'd ever need - no more, no less. It doesn't need generics, the package management story is fine etc. Thankfully he's been out of my life for a long time now but I believe he's still writing Go, and I bet that he's telling anyone that will listen that Go (as it is in 2026) is the perfect programming language and that its implementation of generics was necessary and perfect etc. He wasn't the only one but he certainly took it to the extreme.
- piekvorst 5mo ago
  This is an outlier. The Go team and community never endorsed that. In fact, their position has always been the opposite. To give just one example, see [1]. [1]: https://research.swtch.com/dogma https://research.swtch.com/dogma
  - stouset 5mo ago
    I think it’s pretty clear this post was a response to the clear dogma within the community. > But we need help from everyone. Remember that none of the decisions in Go are infallible; they’re just our best attempts at the time we made them, not wisdom received on stone tablets.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

jaxlfkkgken 5mo ago

[flagged]

tines 5mo ago

I'm not mad, I'm a proponent of stronger type systems. I'm just correcting the record about > They didn't say they never wanted to do generics, but that they did want to take their time and do them right.

piekvorst 5mo ago
What’s the correction? The two claims are not in conflict. Saying “we don’t expect to ever add X” is not equivalent to “we never wanted to add X.” It simply means that they didn’t think it would happen, which can coexist with an underlying willingness to consider it if a suitable approach appeared.
- tines 5mo ago
  You added the word "want", the OP said "need". "We don't ever expect to add X" implies "we don't think we need X."
  - foldr 5mo ago
    Clearly we don’t need this feature. Just because the Go team decides to implement a feature doesn’t imply that they must think that the language needs the feature. You’re searching for contradictions where none exist.
    - tines 5mo ago
      Ah, then they’re implementing needless features! What’s worse! lol
      - foldr 5mo ago
        Most programming language features are not strictly needed. They’re just quality of life improvements that are on balance a good addition to the language.
        4mo ago

the_gipsy 5mo ago

You just can never trust what the go team says.

Matl 5mo ago
Yeah, because software is not meant to evolve and people are not meant to either.
- the_gipsy 5mo ago
  You're not meant to gaslight about the evolution of software.
  - array_key_first 5mo ago
    Changing your mind is not gaslighting, people just change their mind sometimes.
    - the_gipsy 5mo ago
      It's not this one thing, it's that yhey consistently do this
  - kunley 5mo ago
    You're not meant to apply poor man's psychology everywhere just because you have heard about a certain psychological term.
    - the_gipsy 5mo ago
      It's a perfectly good term for the overall and historical attitude of the go dev team.