12 ms·
My understanding is that the Go team isn't opposed to generics, and in fact is quite aware of their value, but that: - it isn't a priority - it is a tricky th
by joncooper 12y ago
My understanding is that the Go team isn't opposed to generics, and in fact is quite aware of their value, but that:
- it isn't a priority
- it is a tricky thing to get right in the context of Go
- there haven't been any satisfactory proposals thus far
If this isn't quite right I'd love to be corrected.
- duaneb 12y agoI'd like to add that generics can add a lot of complexity to a compiler, and the compiler's simplicity is IMHO of great benefit to the language. I'm happy they're taking their time with it; it's better than ending up with a half-assed implementation like Java.
- coldtea 12y agoThat was the common understanding from 2-3 years ago, when they left the question hanging and said that "we'll do it when we find the proper way etc". In the meantime there have been several satisfactory proposals (in the lists and elsewhere), and it's not like 200 other languages implementing Generics have had many issues with them. So, it boils down to the Go core team putting up the solution to an impossible tradeoff as the holdback (and a little exagerrated one at that, with relation to the costs involved). And then, they said "the language won't change" etc recently.
- lbruder 12y agoSo it's more like Guido refusing to add TCO to Python because that would be oh so hard to do. And look, the stack trace! The horror, the horror. /s
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mrgriscom 12y agothat is basically the "please go away and stop asking" response