I think I was saying that what I seem to want personally is the "simple, weak, slight" thing that you likely see as failure.
The opposite end of that--where everything is a list and can be composed without special regard (lisp) or everything is an object that can receive any message (smalltalk) are comfortable for me, but just not what I find myself wanting very often. My own view is not important in the sense that a broad survey would be, but since it seems much less than what people seem to dream of, I wanted to share that maybe people could be happy with less than they seek. Or maybe that ultimate typeless generality is what others really need somehow. I would not know. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:13 PM David Collier-Brown <davecb...@gmail.com> wrote: > We still don't understand genrality: the current generics are > unimpressive. The proposals for Go are typically "let's do something that > has failed already, in hopes that trying it agin will have a different > result". That, alas, is one of the definitions of insanity. > > Due caution is advised! > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Michael T. Jones michael.jo...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
