3 ms·
sigh. Then you're back at using a more complex solution by copying and pasting generic structures and algorithms. Moreover, the idea that generics allows junio
by TheHydroImpulse 11y ago
sigh. Then you're back at using a more complex solution by copying and pasting generic structures and algorithms.
Moreover, the idea that generics allows junior devs enough rope to "hang themselves" is preposterous. There are more than one type of generic system out there, we don't need to replicate C++ templates here.
Let's not fool ourselves here. There's a difference between "we just haven't figured it out yet" and "generics doesn't fit into the vision of Go". The former attitude is perfectly acceptable. The latter is really annoying and misleading because Go does use generics -- internally.
- djhworld 11y ago> Let's not fool ourselves here. There's a difference between "we just haven't figured it out yet" and "generics doesn't fit into the vision of Go". The former attitude is perfectly acceptable. The latter is really annoying and misleading because Go does use generics -- internally. I think there's some misconception here, Russ Cox (one of the core Go team) posted this on HN a few weeks ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417
- sambeau 11y agoI wonder if they've spoken to Phil Wadler. Having done Haskell and Java maybe he could get it right for Go?