>> Fair enough. > >It could be a first step (genrics only in the stdlib) before opening >generics to everybody.
This stdlib trial approach might allow a spec to mature without the compatibility promise? Is there a danger that it evolves to favour implementers over readers? Should support for empty interfaces go? Simplifying interfaces job and documentation? Unfortunately external web articles rarely die. Fortunately Gos docs are very good and the authoritive source. Take this with a pinch of salt as my experience is far less than the designers being scripting, web, c and more recently Go and Dart and in smaller code bases. However I have always endeavoured to write readable code, often rewriting c with too much pointer use and either needless or complex abstraction. I'm afraid to say that even the recent examples and even robs talk, have actually hardened my concern that interfaces, methods and now Generics tend to make code less readable with largely pointless abstraction compared to multiple simple functions (I don't mean passing functions as objects either). Perhaps at the expense of memory copying wrt avoiding methods (I guess methods came about because pointers suck). Personally, I find that I do not appreciate the OOP approach. -- 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/6B8AB03D-888A-492C-B868-5ED650A87F73%40gmail.com.
