On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:03 PM <oju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Generics user here, since Bjarne Stroustrup's CFront, the very first C++ > compiler. > > Whenever you use complex idioms you reduce the amount of people able to > understand your code and able to mantain it. The simpler the code, the more > people can help you. > > This is true.
The advantage of having the extra syntactic abstraction in a language is not something you would tend to dismiss too easily I think. While it filters away some contributors from the code base, it also, on the flip side, makes more experienced programmers work more efficiently. And people generally tend to get better at coding over time, not worse. However, I don't think the inspiration should be C#, Java or C++. I'd rather look toward Modula-3 or Standard ML in which the generic application can only happen at a module level. This, in my experience, removes a lot of the complexity that e.g., C++ has, while not removing a great deal of abstraction in practice. However, this would require the introduction of a "signature" or "module type" (in lieu of the name "interface" used by Modula-3). -- 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.
