On Sat, Jul 29, 2017, at 13:33, dogan.k...@dodobyte.com wrote: >> Also, building a basic one yourself if you don't want to use those tends to >> be exceptionally straightforward. > > Thanks for examples, i can't tell if they are experimental or viable for > production use. I am not sure the case where a code generation tool would be "experimental", as they aren't in most cases that clever, they are mostly just saving typing time. Some of the ones listed are more clever than others -- but I would consider them all "production" ready in so much that they can output code you can use in production.
> But if it's that straightforward, why people complain about it too much. I believe a part of it is tool anxiety. You have to pick a tool, learn it, vendor it, and train others on it and hope it is maintained / improved going forward. When this tool is not a blessed part of the language it often causes stress for people. That said, I use a lot of console tools with Go in my day to day development (over a dozen no less) -- so I feel a tool for generating variations fits very well with the Go ethos. -- Robert Melton | rmel...@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.
