5 ms·

"What surprises me is that almost nobody complains about the lack of generics." Strange. Lack of generics is probably the single most common thing I read/hear

"What surprises me is that almost nobody complains about the lack of generics." Strange. Lack of generics is probably the single most common thing I read/hear people complain about. (Btw, I like and use Go)

unoti 13y ago
I noticed that too. That quote starts with him saying "A lot of developers that seriously tried Go are very happy with it." I imagine that Robert hears about generics an awful lot, so he seems to be saying that the people who complain about generics are not people who have seriously tried Go. Very likely, he's right. There's some selection bias, though, because the people who can't live without generics generally perform a flaming exorcism on the language before long.
- coldtea 13y ago
  His is an extreme case of "no true Scotchman" ("no guy that truly tried Go complains about Generics...") and confirmation bias (since those that stick to it, are happy with the status quo) together... Lots of people have both tried Go, legitimately, and are still concerned about lack of Generics. I've read several that have done so, and have tried it myself and would like Generics. But sure, I could use it, and even enjoy it, even without Generics. That doesn't mean I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
BenDaglish 13y ago
That's the problem with reported conversation - I suspect there was a smile on his face as he was saying that, and I for one was expecting an "(audience laughter)" at the end of the sentence.
- galaktor 13y ago
  True, Rob's jokes can be very dry and subtle. If he ever looks at the golang-nuts Google group [1] (which he evidently does) there's no way this couldn't have been sarcasm. Many questions from newbies touch on the topic of generics. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/golang-nuts https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/golang-nu...
jbarham 13y ago
It's almost certainly a joke since complaints about the lack of generics in Go probably generate the most heat on the mailing list. For example here is a recent thread on the list that quickly degenerated into an epic flamewar: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/golang-nuts/fmmmgg3B1Ic%5B1-25-false%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/golang-n.... (Most amusingly the OP's chosen handle is "Sod Almightly", a pretty strong signal that the guy is a troll, although props to Ian Taylor in particular for keeping civil throughout.)
- _pmf_ 13y ago
  Masterfully executed. Especially delightful is that the first response is "No one is likely to debate this with you", which is promptly followed by 9 pages of discussion.
tcard 13y ago
As I understand it, he is pointing out that people who really get deep into using the language with a constructive purpose don't complain about such perceived issue. Also a pun against early judges. He wrote more about this here: http://commandcenter.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/esmereldas-imagination.html http://commandcenter.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/esmereldas-imag... EDIT: Well, the answerer of that question was Robert (Griesemer), not Rob (Pike), but I suppose the same applies.
tocomment 13y ago
Sorry what's a generic? Can you explain it in Delphi 6 terms? er actually Python terms would be even better.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - tocomment 13y ago
    What's so good about that? Isn't it more convenient to be able to store different types together in the same collection?
    - sluukkonen 13y ago
      It can be more convenient, but the added type safety prevents the programmer from doing many kinds of common mistakes. It's a trade-off.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      No. You typically want different types of the same kind, or of the same family (e.g numeric types or types that extend some interface, etc), not every random thing thrown in. If it was truly whatever type, how would you know what to do with it when you got it out of the collection? E.g foo = myColection.get(2); foo.?????? (what operations can foo afford?)
- hugorodgerbrown 13y ago
  Generics are used to defer type setting from compile time to run time, allowing for flexible, yet type-safe constructs. The classic example is a list (in a strongly-typed language) - without generics you would create specialised strongly-typed list classes - you could have a StringList (only strings), an IntList (only ints), etc. Using generics you can define a single list class of type <T>, where <T> is any type. Then at runtime you would create a List<String> or a List<Int>. Same outcome, less code, easier to maintain. MSDN has a good intro to C# generics - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms379564(v=vs.80).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms379564(v=vs.80).as... They are less appropriate in dynamic languages, as type-safety isn't a compile time concern.

unoti 13y ago

I noticed that too. That quote starts with him saying "A lot of developers that seriously tried Go are very happy with it." I imagine that Robert hears about generics an awful lot, so he seems to be saying that the people who complain about generics are not people who have seriously tried Go. Very likely, he's right. There's some selection bias, though, because the people who can't live without generics generally perform a flaming exorcism on the language before long.

coldtea 13y ago
His is an extreme case of "no true Scotchman" ("no guy that truly tried Go complains about Generics...") and confirmation bias (since those that stick to it, are happy with the status quo) together... Lots of people have both tried Go, legitimately, and are still concerned about lack of Generics. I've read several that have done so, and have tried it myself and would like Generics. But sure, I could use it, and even enjoy it, even without Generics. That doesn't mean I'm perfectly happy with the situation.

BenDaglish 13y ago

That's the problem with reported conversation - I suspect there was a smile on his face as he was saying that, and I for one was expecting an "(audience laughter)" at the end of the sentence.

galaktor 13y ago
True, Rob's jokes can be very dry and subtle. If he ever looks at the golang-nuts Google group [1] (which he evidently does) there's no way this couldn't have been sarcasm. Many questions from newbies touch on the topic of generics. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/golang-nuts https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/golang-nu...

jbarham 13y ago

It's almost certainly a joke since complaints about the lack of generics in Go probably generate the most heat on the mailing list. For example here is a recent thread on the list that quickly degenerated into an epic flamewar: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/golang-nuts/fmmmgg3B1Ic%5B1-25-false%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/golang-n.... (Most amusingly the OP's chosen handle is "Sod Almightly", a pretty strong signal that the guy is a troll, although props to Ian Taylor in particular for keeping civil throughout.)

_pmf_ 13y ago
Masterfully executed. Especially delightful is that the first response is "No one is likely to debate this with you", which is promptly followed by 9 pages of discussion.

tcard 13y ago

As I understand it, he is pointing out that people who really get deep into using the language with a constructive purpose don't complain about such perceived issue. Also a pun against early judges. He wrote more about this here: http://commandcenter.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/esmereldas-imagination.html http://commandcenter.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/esmereldas-imag... EDIT: Well, the answerer of that question was Robert (Griesemer), not Rob (Pike), but I suppose the same applies.

tocomment 13y ago

Sorry what's a generic? Can you explain it in Delphi 6 terms? er actually Python terms would be even better.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- tocomment 13y ago
  What's so good about that? Isn't it more convenient to be able to store different types together in the same collection?
  - sluukkonen 13y ago
    It can be more convenient, but the added type safety prevents the programmer from doing many kinds of common mistakes. It's a trade-off.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    No. You typically want different types of the same kind, or of the same family (e.g numeric types or types that extend some interface, etc), not every random thing thrown in. If it was truly whatever type, how would you know what to do with it when you got it out of the collection? E.g foo = myColection.get(2); foo.?????? (what operations can foo afford?)
hugorodgerbrown 13y ago
Generics are used to defer type setting from compile time to run time, allowing for flexible, yet type-safe constructs. The classic example is a list (in a strongly-typed language) - without generics you would create specialised strongly-typed list classes - you could have a StringList (only strings), an IntList (only ints), etc. Using generics you can define a single list class of type <T>, where <T> is any type. Then at runtime you would create a List<String> or a List<Int>. Same outcome, less code, easier to maintain. MSDN has a good intro to C# generics - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms379564(v=vs.80).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms379564(v=vs.80).as... They are less appropriate in dynamic languages, as type-safety isn't a compile time concern.