Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

I didn't say you can't write Java without using a framework. I didn't say using a framework has anything to do with OOP. I didn't say there are no or just a few "frameworks" (whatever you mean) in Go. I didn't say you can't create framework without using inheritance. сб, 2 янв. 2021 г. в 02:35, r

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

I really hope my negative perception of your attitude stems from a language barrier. To clarify, I was trying to state that you can write Java without using a framework, just as you can write Go using a framework. Using a framework has nothing to do with OOP. Even the term framework is misleadin

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

You keep replying with random sentences no matter what I say, just combining known words in random phrases. Okay, but please put me out of your list, cause I have better games to play. сб, 2 янв. 2021 г. в 00:50, robert engels : > Those concerns are unrelated. There are plenty of frameworks in G

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

Those concerns are unrelated. There are plenty of frameworks in Go as well. You can create frameworks without using inheritance. > On Jan 1, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Space A. wrote: > > Composition is just a principle, which can be implemented on different layers > by different ways. I'd say in Java

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

Composition is just a principle, which can be implemented on different layers by different ways. I'd say in Java you will be forced not only to follow OOP (with inheritance and all of that ofc) even if you don't need it, you will end up writing in some framework and that framework will become your

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

You can write Java (or any other OOP with inheritance) using composition rather than inheritance. Much of the Java stdlib uses both. It can be argued that most usages of anonymous inner classes are composition rather than inheritance. > On Jan 1, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Space A. wrote: > > > Wait, I

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

That's fine so we disagree on that. An you also seem to disagree on FAQ (I know you read it, that's for other readers): https://golang.org/doc/faq#Is_Go_an_object-oriented_language Won't say how many years I have because I hate these talks and I used to think I'm still 20 yo =) But yea, I remember

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

I hate to chime in here, but Go by the industry accepted definition - at least based on my 30+ years experience - is that Go is clearly an OOP language. It has “instances” coupled with “behavior”. That is, given a struct instance I can call a method “on it” declared by its definition. Other OOP

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

This is getting increasingly off-topic, but: On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 7:37 AM Alex Besogonov wrote: > Yes, it does make it usable. See: https://play.golang.org/p/IqxpujkqXnO > I don't understand the definition of subtyping you are using. AIUI, you would also argue that `Base` is a subtype of `int

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

> On Dec 31, 2020, at 15:10, Axel Wagner wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:27 PM Alex Besogonov > wrote: > Moreover, Go has inheritance as well (struct embedding and interface > inheritance), making it a fairly typical example. > > Interfaces yes (though I

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

On Dec 25, 2020, at 8:48 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > Both Java and C++ has benefited greatly from generics and most of their > respective communities wouldn't want them gone. I am pretty sure that's what > will happen with Go as well. Can we leave it now before we go from > "corruption" to

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

Axel provided good insights about the history and the big picture of generics. Since the beginning, not having generics was not a goal - or a promise. >From Computer Science - Brian Kernighan on successful language design : "Perl's time has passed because

Re: [go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

I meant success, as in ‘developer acceptance/enthusiasm’, not necessarily commercial success. > On Dec 23, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Space A. wrote: > > Prime driver of Java's success were enterprises with huge amount of > investments (money) into ecosystem along with all JSRs developed by companies

[go-nuts] Generics, please go away!

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 functio