4 ms·
> they do not believe that generics support as commonly envisioned is in line with go's mission. More like they can't add generics without breaking the backwar
by aikah 11y ago
> they do not believe that generics support as commonly envisioned is in line with go's mission.
More like they can't add generics without breaking the backward compatibility of their mediocre type system.
- danieldk 11y agoMore like they can't add generics without breaking the backward compatibility of their mediocre type system. Reference? Proof? (Genuinely interested.)
- aikah 11y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417
- danieldk 11y agoI don't see anything in Russ Cox's answer that proves your statement. If there is any conclusion to that post, it is 'We can probably do it. But we are not doing it now because we are too afraid that we do it wrong, like Java.' My problem with the Go team's line of reasoning is that they always cite Java (erasure gives problems) and C++ (too long compile times), but there are many languages that have implemented parametric polymorphism nicely ages ago (C#, ML, Haskell). Sometimes I wonder if it is the lack of a person like Philip Wadler on the Go team who can hash out how to best fit generics into Go's type system.