Although i am also against generics, as i didn't even know it existed
before i started to see people complaining that Go didn't have it, i don't
think it will be that bad. It probably won't be overused for the same
reason interface{} isn't overused, the cases where it really makes sense
and is idiomatic go are very few, and when used out of these cases, they
will be pointed out by other people as bad practice.Additionally the drafts for generics don't want to break the language, and as such you can keep writing your standard Go as it never existed. On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, 09:26 Space A., <reexist...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately it was expected that creators of the language will not > resist forever being under the pressure of masses most which do not even > code in Go, or not use Go as the main language and just following patterns > and shitty idioms they took elsewhere. Generics are bullshit crap in its > essence. They either don't improve anything or overused (with some huge > cost). I'm telling this as someone who had 15+ years in Java before moved > to Go. I was literally happy when I found that Go has almost everything > which is good about programming and almost nothing bad. And I knew that it > will start degrading at some point. I just keep some hopes that community > will fork the language after this "Cyberpunk" releases. Rephrasing "no is > temporary, yes is forever": good Go is temporary. > > > > > воскресенье, 20 декабря 2020 г. в 22:38:54 UTC+3, Martin Hanson: > >> 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 functions reverse >> some list, one of ints and one of strings, seriously!? We already have tons >> and tons of open source reusable code that covers all use cases which >> people complain about. >> >> Go was designed without generics purposefully from the start and Go is >> fine just the way it is. >> >> Adding generics means that we're opening the door to the beginning of >> bloating Go with all the crap that Java, C++ and all the other complex >> languages has gotten over the years, and Go was designed specifically >> without that clutter. So we add generics, then what? Classes? >> >> Adding generics to Go ruins that beautiful simplicity that went into the >> design and the added complexity just isn't worth it! The standard library >> have managed just fine without generics and so have we! >> > -- > 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/99ee1c1d-202c-421b-b63f-138d62e49dfcn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/99ee1c1d-202c-421b-b63f-138d62e49dfcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAE%3DAWBVX5k6_4b8Mgsu9_DdMw5M7Ei0NZgo2E%3DP%2Bwn0uepZvcg%40mail.gmail.com.
