Missed your second question.
> > But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems alarmist. >> Generics will open a huge door for libraries to be written that will make >> our lives easier. I'm thinking specifically about data processing and >> machine learning. A lot of devs use Python right now for this which leads >> to duplication of code across languages. Complex algorithms will be able >> to be shared without hacky type conversions wrapping every function call. >> Who is "yours"? You talk about Python so just go ahead and use Python if >> it serves you, convince your team that Python is better, whatever. >> > You know that this argument can be applied to you as well? > Can it? I use Go. I never said anywhere that there is some language like Python, that Go should take from. Instead I was always saying it must differentiate. I see no problem in using other languages if they do well for other people, so I don't understand why so many here want Go to become yet another Java. If you go by this way, Go will always be just a niche thing, "bad copy" which lacks so many cool features. And as I said in my reply to the very first message of the thread, I will go for the fork of Go1, if it happens. But unfortunately it seems that I will be forced to live with generics. There will be absolutely no way to use Go without them when it's landed. -- 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/CADKwOTfzvw9VMiCSDjR60bkdo3%2B%3D%2B0Xur4mF3SewjGxO6Kyiqg%40mail.gmail.com.
