I'm sure my thought is off-topic and is not applicable, I shall give a try after seeing the trends in programming and non-programming world. There is an "overlap" between Generic and non-Generic. If it can be solve between the two sides, that's easy with "translation" to and back?
When we have a language barrier, Google Translator makes that possible or ignore everything I said here. When Go can cross-compile to different OS architectures, it could be applicable for source code as well. On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 20:27:15 UTC+8 Space A. wrote: > Go doesn't have classes and is not an OOP language. > > Classes (like in Java) vs structs (like in Go) is about inheritance vs > composition, not about attaching fields and methods. Inheritance implies > type hierarchy, child and parent, virtual functions, abstract and final > implementations and so on so forth to keep this all of this manageable. > > > > вторник, 29 декабря 2020 г. в 23:27:45 UTC+3, Alex Besogonov: > >> Please, stop being so condescending to newcomers and non-professional >> developers. Generics as uses by end-users will improve their experience, >> not make it harder. >> >> (And what is this obsession with "classes"? Go has them - structs with >> methods are classes). >> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 1:32:30 AM UTC-8 >> rickti...@googlemail.com wrote: >> >>> My point of view is that Generics should not become part of the Go >>> standard library. I appreciate there are use cases where it is very helpful >>> to have, but I do not believe that adds value to Go. The real value for Go >>> is it's simplicity, avoidance of generics and avoidance of classes. This >>> makes the language accessible and approachable to all, which is >>> increasingly more valuable. Go appeals to new-comers and experienced >>> developers because it is simple, and comfortable. The rate of uptake in >>> computing technology is still subject to Moores law, and today we see a new >>> type of programmer emerging, the 'citizen developer'. >>> >>> Go follows time proven computational concepts, it does not follow the >>> 'new paradigm' tribes, it's roots are firmly planted in statically typed >>> procedural/functional programming techniques, and this maps well to much of >>> the literature available. The growth of entry level developers ( aka >>> 'citizen developers' ) will be exponential over the next decade, and in >>> that landscape it is Go's simplicity that will win the day. >>> >>> On Monday, 28 December 2020 at 17:35:40 UTC L Godioleskky wrote: >>> >>>> " If generics gets added to Go, we're opening a very dangerous door, and >>>> it will be the downfall of Go because - and Robert Griesemer this is >>>> especially addressed to you - what's next then? Seriously, what's next? >>>> ... " >>>> >>>> .. AI, followed by cryto currency and asexual repoduction >>>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 5:09:05 AM UTC-5 Martin Hanson wrote: >>>> >>>>> No polls. It's not a matter of majority rule! >>>>> >>>>> It's a matter of understanding why generics was left out of Go from >>>>> the >>>>> start, like classes was left out of Go. If we start adding stuff that >>>>> the original developers of Go left out by purpose, we're not >>>>> understanding the design choices that went into Go, which is exactly >>>>> what makes Go unique! >>>>> >>>>> Go was a major slap in the face to all the hype that has polluted the >>>>> programming industry for the past 30-40 years, which is why Go got so >>>>> much hate in the beginning from all the hype loving people. >>>>> >>>>> If you want to add generics to Go, if you want to change how errors >>>>> are >>>>> handled, if you want X, Y or Z feature that Java, C++, or some other >>>>> complex language has got, then go use that language! Why are you even >>>>> here!? >>>>> >>>>> The design choices that went into Go was not made randomly, nor were >>>>> they made by just anyone. Please understand that the people who >>>>> designed Go, and we all know who they are, had/has tons of experience >>>>> and the pragmatic approach they took is what make Go stand out so >>>>> beautifully! >>>>> >>>>> If generics gets added to Go, we're opening a very dangerous door, and >>>>> it will be the downfall of Go because - and Robert Griesemer this is >>>>> especially addressed to you - what's next then? Seriously, what's >>>>> next? >>>>> Let the community decide by majority!? Is that how we design a >>>>> professional programming language now? By majority rule?! NO! The >>>>> majority is all about hype and shine. >>>>> >>>>> Adding generics to Go will rip out the spine of the philosophy of Go >>>>> and I for one will not be a part of that. I have more than 30 years of >>>>> experience in the business and I fully understand why generics and >>>>> classes and all the other clutter was left out of Go. >>>>> >>>>> If generics gets added to Go, we're a big enough part of the >>>>> community, >>>>> that passionately hate that, that we can manage to fork Go - which I >>>>> strongly believe will then be the right thing to do! >>>>> >>>> -- 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/cef57f9c-f641-4887-8cca-675613e8be37n%40googlegroups.com.
