Prime driver of Java's success were enterprises with huge amount of investments (money) into ecosystem along with all JSRs developed by companies and groups with J2EE becoming de-facto a standard for building enterprise applications. And all this was happening way before any generics.
среда, 23 декабря 2020 г. в 16:43:46 UTC+3, ren...@ix.netcom.com: > To add some weight to the pro generic side - from someone who doesn’t > necessarily think Go needs them - generics and more specifically the “Java > Collections” package was a prime driver in Java’s success. Moving highly > tuned and verified implementations into the core library removed a huge > burden on developers - allowing them to focus more time on application > structure/function rather than nuts and bolts - while gaining greater > “readability” as these apps used common/well known apis as a foundation. > > On Dec 23, 2020, at 7:14 AM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts < > golan...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:17 PM Martin Hanson <greenco...@yandex.com> > wrote: > >> @Ian, for more than 10 years we have managed nicely without generics. >> > > Of course, this doesn't answer how we'd have managed *with* them. > > We did manage for decades without general purpose CPUs. We did manage for > several decades without functions, coroutines or hashtables. We did manage > for decades without portable programming languages or multi-tasking > operating systems. We managed for many decades without the internet or the > world wide web. > > In hindsight, though, "we managed so long without them" doesn't appear to > be a very convincing argument to not have them today. > > >> So what is the real true-life problems that validates adding generics >> to Go? I haven't seen a single example, seriously not one! I have only >> seen useless examples like the one Ian gives in the talk, which of >> course I know only serves as an example, but we need real life problems >> to solve, not theoretical ones. >> > > To me, this suggests that the issue isn't that you haven't seen enough > examples, but that you haven't found them convincing you that the benefits > outweigh the costs. Which is a completely valid position to take. > Obviously, lots of other people (at least some of which you, I think, > respect professionally) see that differently. Which is also completely > valid. So, confronted with that reality, there are many productive ways to > react. Some examples are > > • Try to engage in the design process to keep the cost down (i.e. suggest > simplifications to the generics design) > • Try to engage in the design process to increase the benefits (i.e. > suggest improvements that increase its power) > • Accept that it's possible for reasonable people to look at the same > problem and proposed solution and agree on what the costs and what the > benefits are, but weigh them differently, just as a matter of personal > taste or opinion - and thus agree to disagree > • Try to change the other persons mind about what the costs or benefits > are and how much they weigh > > Now, that last one *can* be very productive. Especially early on in a > discussion, we tend to overlook hidden costs or surprising benefits and > having them pointed out can be really helpful. Personally, though, I must > say that the generics discussion has been going on for 10 years (and even > more, if we don't limit ourselves to Go) and I don't - personally - believe > that there is much hidden cost or surprising benefit left to be discovered. > And ISTM that swaying someone's mind on them will most likely take more > than just outright saying that you don't agree. > > So, I guess the question really is, what's the goal? Do you want to get > the best language? In that case, I'd personally suggest to focus on > improving the generics design. Or do you want to convince others that their > valuation of costs and benefits is inaccurate? In that case, I'd personally > suggest to try and find new costs or benefits - but keep in mind, that 10 > years is a lot of time for a lot of them to already have been mentioned a > lot. Or do you just want to be heard as being in disagreement? That's also, > of course, valid. > > What I understand from all of this is that people who are pro-generics are >> in reality really talking about something that is *nice to have*, not >> something that is seriously needed and this is where I become really >> frustrated! > > > I understand this frustration. But it might help to keep in mind that > computers are simply nice to have in exactly the same way. > And I think there's an opportunity to have empathy with people who *are* > in favor of generics. Because just like you are frustrated that generics > are just nice to have (i.e. you perceive their actual benefit as > insignificant), people on the other side of the aisle might be *just as* > frustrated by you, because generics are just slightly more complex (i.e. > they perceive their actual costs as insignificant). Your frustration is > valid, but so is theirs. > > As I have said many times now, adding stuff to Go comes with >> a heavy price, it opens the door for all the people who have been whining >> and complaining about Go for the past ten+ years to add further stuff that >> is "nice to have", or change things they keep complaining about, like how >> Go handles errors and what not. >> >> After generics gets added, it's going to be something else next time, and >> again and again. The list goes on and on about changes people want to >> make to Go. Not real life problems, just so-called "nice to have". >> >> No, the added and increased complexity I have witness in other >> programming languages over the past 3-4 decades, because of exactly >> things like this, is absolutely mind blowing. This must not happen to 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...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/17246551608725779%40iva4-6593cae50902.qloud-c.yandex.net >> . >> > -- > 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...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfFVeWZcnMtWQ3gZNeJ46GUFr68yYZtVa1YNmpQtbV-8yA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfFVeWZcnMtWQ3gZNeJ46GUFr68yYZtVa1YNmpQtbV-8yA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5bc14220-c09f-4920-a11c-7bc2d9d3896cn%40googlegroups.com.
