I think you might be confusing my remarks with someone else. I am against generics in Go.
Also, the Java + Android was in reference to installed applications. Since very few desktop applications are developed today, you typically need to look at back end. Java still dominates here. You could make the claim it is C/C++ since most browsers are written in that which means lots of installed base. If you talk unique applications I don’t think there’s a contest. The 99.999 was an exaggeration I thought that was obvious. Still I had linked to a academic paper prior that concluded the overwhelming majority in use cases were in collections. Don’t have access right now. Anyway, I don’t want Go to mess up with generics either, so we’re on the same page :) Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 27, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Pat Farrell <pat22...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 11:32:10 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >> First, there is simply no debate, Java += Android, and you have the most >> successful language/platform ever. NO debate. > > Er, I can argue that VisualBasic + Windows is the most successfull but I have > no dog in that hunt. or C# and Windows.... > The topic was Java's claim for write-once, run-everywhere. Debate tip: don't > use one OS, such as Android, to prove "everywhere" > It kinda ignores wide-spread platforms such as OS-X, Windows, Linux, iOS, and > then there are niche platforms like BSD. Everywhere includes all the majors > and all the niche. > >> Arguing against Java in terms of “generics are done poorly”, and citing a >> third-party FAQ is absurd. The “core" Java tutorial on generics is a 3-4 >> pages, and almost every Java developer never goes beyond that. 99.9999% of >> Java generic use cases are self explanatory or explained in a matter of >> minutes to anyone with any development experience. > > > Got proof, citations for your 99.9999% claim? I bet not. > If you look at forums such as JavaRanch, you will see lots of questions about > Java's generics, and lots of references to the third party FAQ. > > My point is that Java generics were hacked onto the language with an attempt > to keep backward compatibility. They are a mess. I won't bother to list why. > Go is nice and clean, and I don't think hacking generics into GO using > backwards compatibility as the holy grail is a good idea. Its all IMHO. > > You have not convinced me, and I doubt I can convince you. So let it drop. > > I sure hope that GO doesn't botch it like Java did. > -- > 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. -- 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.
