Yes, I agree with you. I use go for more than 3 years. The language is simple and elegant. But generics will destroy this. Generics bring a lot of complexity, make language seems ugly with only a few benifit. They say you can ignore it. Infact you can not. This language is on the way of corruption.
On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 3:38:54 AM UTC+8 Martin Hanson wrote: > I think people who want generics added to Go should go and program in Java > or C++. > > Adding generics to Go will ruin the beautiful simplicity of the language > and I haven't found a single example in which adding generics to Go pays > off. > > Even with the examples of having two almost identical functions reverse > some list, one of ints and one of strings, seriously!? We already have tons > and tons of open source reusable code that covers all use cases which > people complain about. > > Go was designed without generics purposefully from the start and Go is > fine just the way it is. > > Adding generics means that we're opening the door to the beginning of > bloating Go with all the crap that Java, C++ and all the other complex > languages has gotten over the years, and Go was designed specifically > without that clutter. So we add generics, then what? Classes? > > Adding generics to Go ruins that beautiful simplicity that went into the > design and the added complexity just isn't worth it! The standard library > have managed just fine without generics and so have we! > -- 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/7c3e4e9f-4553-413b-8bdb-57d316ad030cn%40googlegroups.com.
