mopsy

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by mopsy 8y ago

   As I understand, the type would be implicitly applied to every func/struc in scope (which I assume would be the package) It work quite well for package like a Map so any data structure/algorithm. I suspect it would be less ideal f
2. 2.▲
   by mopsy 8y ago

   I don't think it's because of the complexity. I'm quite sure it would not have been difficult to do. One of the reason is that you don't always want to check the error. The most common one is fmt.Println. I would not lik
3. 3.▲
   by mopsy 9y ago

   The language to access a relational database is always SQL. So much than a lot of people doesn't make any difference between SQL and a DBMS. Aren't we in the same situation as Javascript on the web? I always had wondered why there
4. 4.▲
   by mopsy 9y ago

   Well, It was more about strategy :) Sorry for the stupid analogy, but that's how I feel about the discussion: A: I need a Ferrari to go to work. How is it hard to understand! B: Well, you've only have 10 minute commute, a small ca
5. 5.▲
   by mopsy 9y ago

   Because you should stop asking for generics like in Java/C#/rust etc.. Such generic to make custom type safe container is like using a canon to kill a fly. You should ask for generic package/templated package. It solve the pr