Pondering this, my concern is that it might become too powerful. I'm scared
this will make it harder to work out what someone has done if there's too
much indirection and magic added on top. It feels like it could be a really
*really* big hammer.
I don't buy the argument " those who prefer to avoid generics may do so and
carry on as they are" because go is all about large projects and code
reuse. If you enable people to write code that the average programmer can't
understand, then IMO that is against the philosophy of what i thought go
was.
Knuth save me from people writing "clever" code.
Chris
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018 12:04:15 UTC+1, alan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Although I respect the opinions expressed here, I think you might be
> pleasantly surprised by how the proposed design would dovetail with the
> rest of Go and make a number of things much more convenient than they are
> at present.
>
> It would be nice, for example, to have a full range of collection types in
> the standard library without the need to use interface{}, type assertions
> and the performance overhead of 'boxing'.
>
> It's not an ugly design with angle brackets all over the place and most of
> the time you'd hardly notice you were using a generic function as the type
> parameter(s) would be automatically inferred from usage.
>
> Better still it would be compatible with Go 1.
>
> Admittedly, there's a lot of discussion over the design at present though
> that's mainly about the constraint system. Everybody agrees that this needs
> to be both simple and expressive though opinions differ over the best way
> to achieve that.
>
> Anyway, as I said in another thread, the important thing is that the
> existing built-in generic stuff is not interfered with, so those who prefer
> to avoid generics may do so and carry on as they are. That way everybody
> will be happy :)
>
> Alan
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 5:04:26 PM UTC+1,
> jucie....@zanthus.com.br wrote:
>>
>> Go core team is working hard to bring generics to the language because
>> several people asked for it. With all due respect for those users and for
>> people working hard to make generics a reality, I feel that a greater
>> number of people would suffer after generics adoption. So, I feel compeled
>> to manifest my opinion: sorry guys, Go with generics will be worse than Go
>> without generics.
>>
>> The language strives for simplicity since its inception and that is what
>> attracted a large part of its user base. We must think about who we will
>> want to have in our community 10 years from now. Supporting generics would
>> please a minority to the detriment of a large number of potential users.
>>
>> Today Go is easy to learn and tools are easy to implement. Please keep it
>> that way.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
--
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.
