4 ms·
replace Go with Python in the text, and you won't see a difference: there are iterable, keyable, file-like interfaces, etc. And creating your own is trivial.
by LBarret 12y ago
replace Go with Python in the text, and you won't see a difference: there are iterable, keyable, file-like interfaces, etc. And creating your own is trivial.
- icebraining 12y agoYes, but Python doesn't compile to a single binary, and usually runs much slower. What people like about Go is its mix of features, not some specific one by itself.
- pjmlp 12y agoDepends on the implementation.
- cma 12y agoPython doesn't verify the interface is met until run time.
- coldtea 12y agoWith all the cases were Go pushes you to use interface{} that's the case in Go a lot of the time too. If it had Generics that would be another thing.
- ansible 12y agoWith all the cases were Go pushes you to use interface{} that's the case in Go a lot of the time too. However, you can wrap an interface{} using container (for example), with type-specific input and output functions, getting back compile-time type-checking. Yes, it is not optimal, and yes, you're still paying the price for type assertions. If it had Generics that would be another thing. I would like to see a good solution for this that integrates well with the rest of the language.
- coldtea 12y agoI would like to see a ho-hum solution for this that's on par with what's offered on other languages. I say that because the Go designers, despite having designed a quite mediocre language, suddenly when it comes to generics the want the perfect no-compromises solution or nothing.