On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 14:05:19 +0200 "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Interestingly, Rob Pike comments on this world view: > > http://commandcenter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html > ---- > "Early in the rollout of Go I was told by someone that he could > not imagine working in a language without generic types. As I > have reported elsewhere, I found that an odd remark. > > To be fair he was probably saying in his own way that he really > liked what the STL does for him in C++. For the purpose of > argument, though, let's take his claim at face value. > > What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists of > ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find that an odd > claim. I spend very little of my programming time struggling with > those issues, even in languages without generic types. > > But more important, what it says is that types are the way to > lift that burden. Types. Not polymorphic functions or language > primitives or helpers of other kinds, but types. > > That's the detail that sticks with me." > ----
Sounds like Pike is either implying that all approaches are created equal, or that "types" are inferior. On the contrary, I think there's good reason to prefer the type-based solution. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I don't understand the other approaches well enough. Maybe Pike would actually convince more people if he spent more time explaining *how* Go sufficiently addresses the issue and less time using meta-arguments to rehash "Why can't people just start liking Go?" It's unfortunate, because the more I read these quotes of his, the more I have to wonder whether his emperor even has any clothes at all.