4 ms·
The big thing people miss is that while lack of generics might cost them effort worth X, other Go features benefits them Y. The value of Y is pretty large in ca
by vardump 12y ago
The big thing people miss is that while lack of generics might cost them effort worth X, other Go features benefits them Y. The value of Y is pretty large in case of Go, when it comes to concurrency and language level simplicity. It's hard to go wrong in Go.
Whoever designed Go seems to have some experience debugging and maintaining large concurrent systems.
When you design a language, you have to be so careful of things you add. Because otherwise you get C++ (or one of those cute let's-add-all-the-features-we-can-think-of scripting languages). In good and in bad. You can't remove features afterwards, so better not add a feature you can't get right from the beginning.
- threeseed 12y agoNobody is saying Go should rush to implement generics or any other feature. The issue is more the dismissive attitude towards them.
- davecheney 12y agoCitation needed please. Ian Lance Taylor, a core member of the Go team has revised and replied to many of the generics debates on go-nuts.