4 ms·

I moved on This caught my eye because I recall you being someone who has vigorously criticized Go in every single Go discussion. A quick search and I can find

by personZ 12y ago

I moved on This caught my eye because I recall you being someone who has vigorously criticized Go in every single Go discussion. A quick search and I can find lengthy critiques from you going back four years. It very much seems like you haven't moved on.

Dewie 12y ago
I think he has moved on in the sense that he doesn't develop in Go anymore.
- personZ 12y ago
  Given that he has been talking about how much Go sucks for almost the entirety of its existence, I highly doubt they've ever developed in Go. It became something to be an advocate against, not a tool in the belt.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    I used Go before it went 1.0 and tried to contribute to os.user and some other experimental packages back in the early days.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    You'd be surprised. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-dev/Zx2uSqvMS0Q/q816JGc412gJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-dev/Zx2uSqvMS0Q...
pjmlp 12y ago
I moved on in the sense that I am not arguing about it any longer. If you read correctly my post, I just said I would like to see the discussion about generics take into account what other generic systems besides Java and C++ offer. In those four years as you say, I have never seen such a document, even most discussions on gonuts went around Java, C++ and .NET implementations. There are mentions that a prototype was made, yet the conclusions haven't been shared with the outside world. If the designers don't want to implement generics, I can always look to Go as Active Oberon with C like syntax. I see more value arguing about using Go for user space applications that are still made in C, just because the authors needed a compiled language than arguing about the essence of generics in Go. That boat has long left. Edit: Just got to read Ian's opinion, quite interesting.

4 ms·

I moved on This caught my eye because I recall you being someone who has vigorously criticized Go in every single Go discussion. A quick search and I can find

by personZ 12y ago

Dewie 12y ago
I think he has moved on in the sense that he doesn't develop in Go anymore.
- personZ 12y ago
  Given that he has been talking about how much Go sucks for almost the entirety of its existence, I highly doubt they've ever developed in Go. It became something to be an advocate against, not a tool in the belt.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    I used Go before it went 1.0 and tried to contribute to os.user and some other experimental packages back in the early days.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    You'd be surprised. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-dev/Zx2uSqvMS0Q/q816JGc412gJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-dev/Zx2uSqvMS0Q...
pjmlp 12y ago
I moved on in the sense that I am not arguing about it any longer. If you read correctly my post, I just said I would like to see the discussion about generics take into account what other generic systems besides Java and C++ offer. In those four years as you say, I have never seen such a document, even most discussions on gonuts went around Java, C++ and .NET implementations. There are mentions that a prototype was made, yet the conclusions haven't been shared with the outside world. If the designers don't want to implement generics, I can always look to Go as Active Oberon with C like syntax. I see more value arguing about using Go for user space applications that are still made in C, just because the authors needed a compiled language than arguing about the essence of generics in Go. That boat has long left. Edit: Just got to read Ian's opinion, quite interesting.