3 ms·

How does a language without generics claim to "do more with less code"? Don't get me wrong, I like Go, but it's hard to get behind any language with that low of

How does a language without generics claim to "do more with less code"? Don't get me wrong, I like Go, but it's hard to get behind any language with that low of an abstraction ceiling. Then again, I work in a web shop, building CRUD apps for a living, so maybe it doesn't matter for people who only have to build one version of something.

gtaylor 12y ago
As a web developer, my tinkerings with Go haven't ever left me wanting for generics. I can't say that this would be the case for every usage case, but it was never an issue for me personally. It's not really my place to argue for or against them, just figured I'd share an anecdote.
Roboprog 12y ago
We survived getting things into and out of Lists in Java 1.2 to 1.4 somehow. The typecasting on the .get(...) calls is a nuisance, but a minor one.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  Back in 2002. 12 years ago!
  - Roboprog 12y ago
    It was a dark age, and void stars filled the console. Many a core were dumped. An age where boys became men! :-)
- threeseed 12y ago
  Sure. And that era of Java was responsible for much of the crap, duplicated code that many of us enterprise developers have had to maintain for a living. To ask developers to go through that again is a bit rich.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >We survived getting things into and out of Lists in Java 1.2 to 1.4 somehow Being able to survive something is a pretty low bar.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
I saw a transcript of Rob Pike's "Less is More" where he says "What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists of ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find that an odd claim. I spend very little of my programming time struggling with those issues, even in languages without generic types." and I had literally not three days before fixed a bug in somebody's c++ code caused by using their own hand-rolled stack class instead of std::stack, so I'm not inclied to be charitable on go's lack of generics.
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  ... and yet you see quite a lot of code using the Go equivalent of "void *" and casts to get its work done. (That would be the empty interface.) Go looks like it was invented in the 80s.
aikah 12y ago
Go is really minimalistic.thus,you either follow its philosophy or you cant use it.That's why I believe this language isnt for everyone.Try to look for alternatives such as D if you want a concurrent "safe" C ,which doesnt eat as much memory as the JVM.

gtaylor 12y ago

As a web developer, my tinkerings with Go haven't ever left me wanting for generics. I can't say that this would be the case for every usage case, but it was never an issue for me personally. It's not really my place to argue for or against them, just figured I'd share an anecdote.

Roboprog 12y ago

We survived getting things into and out of Lists in Java 1.2 to 1.4 somehow. The typecasting on the .get(...) calls is a nuisance, but a minor one.

pjmlp 12y ago
Back in 2002. 12 years ago!
- Roboprog 12y ago
  It was a dark age, and void stars filled the console. Many a core were dumped. An age where boys became men! :-)
threeseed 12y ago
Sure. And that era of Java was responsible for much of the crap, duplicated code that many of us enterprise developers have had to maintain for a living. To ask developers to go through that again is a bit rich.
coldtea 12y ago
>We survived getting things into and out of Lists in Java 1.2 to 1.4 somehow Being able to survive something is a pretty low bar.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

I saw a transcript of Rob Pike's "Less is More" where he says "What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists of ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find that an odd claim. I spend very little of my programming time struggling with those issues, even in languages without generic types." and I had literally not three days before fixed a bug in somebody's c++ code caused by using their own hand-rolled stack class instead of std::stack, so I'm not inclied to be charitable on go's lack of generics.

lomnakkus 12y ago
... and yet you see quite a lot of code using the Go equivalent of "void *" and casts to get its work done. (That would be the empty interface.) Go looks like it was invented in the 80s.

aikah 12y ago

Go is really minimalistic.thus,you either follow its philosophy or you cant use it.That's why I believe this language isnt for everyone.Try to look for alternatives such as D if you want a concurrent "safe" C ,which doesnt eat as much memory as the JVM.