Generics enable more than just replacing loops. For example, they can enable libraries of generic algorithms to be used with any type of array. Here's an example:
foo := GetArray() result := foo.Take(10).map(...).Sort(...).Reduce(...) That is simple to understand and in one line of code. Imagine the acrobatics (and lines of code) needed to do this using Go's loops! You can read my full article on why Go needs generics here: http://nomad.so/2015/03/why-gos-design-is-a-disservice-to-intelligent-programmers/ On Friday, 2 June 2017 09:17:54 UTC+1, Florin Pățan wrote: > > Since everyone thinks it but nobody bothers to reply to it: this whole > thing you propose can be currently done with a for loop, which not only is > explicit about what it doing, but it also lets you control if you want to > exit early from it and so on. Complicating the whole language because > something is cool (yet looks like a really complex thing that you need to > think about while reading the code) is in no one's benefit. Stop trying to > avoid a couple of extra rows of for {} (where the third row is literally > just an "}") and start embracing the fact that you can understand the code > by looking at it and not apply any complex mental acrobatics to figure out > what those three lines of code are doing. Your future self/person after you > will thank you for that. -- 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.
