3 ms·

Considering that Ian was already working on them before 1.0, and never stopped until a solution was found, we know for certain they were planned by at least one

Considering that Ian was already working on them before 1.0, and never stopped until a solution was found, we know for certain they were planned by at least one person on the Go team. If you are struggling to say that Go people are not a single monolith then sure. Nobody has ever thought people are a single monolith. However, the original announcement makes the intent of the project clear: "Not yet", not "never". They were always planned to be accepted into Go. But not before an acceptable solution was found.

ksec 2mo ago
Do we know if Go team is working in 2.0 release?
- dolmen 2mo ago
  We know they aren't. They have successfully been able to add major features such as generics without breaking 1.0 compatibility, and the trend is to continue than way. Well there is no major language feature in sight in fact. Also major figures of the Go team (Russ, Ian, Rob, Ken) are gone.
  - ksec 2mo ago
    Oh I somehow completely missed Russ left. I was rather hoping there will be a version 2 from all the lessons they have learned.
AdieuToLogic 2mo ago
Regarding generics (a.k.a. "templates"): > However, the original announcement makes the intent of the project clear: "Not yet", not "never". They were always planned to be accepted into Go. This is an exceedingly charitable interpretation of the position held by at least one Go language designer (Rob Pike)[0]: Notice that Robert said C was the starting point, not C++. I'm not certain but I believe he meant C proper, especially because Ken was there. But it's also true that, in the end, we didn't really start from C. We built from scratch, borrowing only minor things like operators and brace brackets and a few common keywords. In the end of course it came out quite different from either C or C++. More different even than many realize. I made a list of significant simplifications in Go over C and C++: ... - no templates ... 0 - https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...
- Mawr 2mo ago
  C++ templates and Go generics are very much not the same thing.

ksec 2mo ago

Do we know if Go team is working in 2.0 release?

dolmen 2mo ago
We know they aren't. They have successfully been able to add major features such as generics without breaking 1.0 compatibility, and the trend is to continue than way. Well there is no major language feature in sight in fact. Also major figures of the Go team (Russ, Ian, Rob, Ken) are gone.
- ksec 2mo ago
  Oh I somehow completely missed Russ left. I was rather hoping there will be a version 2 from all the lessons they have learned.

AdieuToLogic 2mo ago

Regarding generics (a.k.a. "templates"): > However, the original announcement makes the intent of the project clear: "Not yet", not "never". They were always planned to be accepted into Go. This is an exceedingly charitable interpretation of the position held by at least one Go language designer (Rob Pike)[0]: Notice that Robert said C was the starting point, not C++. I'm not certain but I believe he meant C proper, especially because Ken was there. But it's also true that, in the end, we didn't really start from C. We built from scratch, borrowing only minor things like operators and brace brackets and a few common keywords. In the end of course it came out quite different from either C or C++. More different even than many realize. I made a list of significant simplifications in Go over C and C++: ... - no templates ... 0 - https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...

Mawr 2mo ago
C++ templates and Go generics are very much not the same thing.