Back when I first learned about the diamond problem with multiple inheritance, I've known we need someone to invent the next and better thing after inheritance. I do hope somebody smarter than me is somewhere trying. Or even has succeeded.
And back when I first learned about the code bloat that could result from C++ generics/templates, I've known we need somebody invent the next and better thing after "Generators". Generators, by the way, first appeared in the 1950's, when they were considered a failure. It's been decades, and I'm still waiting. I would like to believe the Go Authors are waiting for better solutions. Or even inventing them. N.B. All praise to the Go Authors for upgrading past the massive inefficiency of #include files. Also for many other things. Well built software is easily modified. Easily-modified software is modified and modified until it is incomprehensible and no longer easily modified. Progress gets slower and slower and slower. Until it stops entirely. Having the maturity and character to refrain from second-best modifications is rare and wonderful. The ideas behind generics and inheritance are basically: "Do this thing just like that other thing, except differently here and here". Re-use code and concepts. I can feel the passion for this goal. I have felt the sand in my gears as I drive the new machine with 256 levers and switches. *On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 8:25:35 AM UTC+2, dc0d wrote:* > > *All forms of generics that I would love to have in Go: ...* > -- 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.
