> I have, plenty of times in the past, said myself that people who want generics should just use Java or C++. I'm not proud of saying that. It was a mistake.
What if you actually were right? Have you ever been looking at it through "Clear is better than clever" prism? What if in 10 years you say: "Holy sh*t..." =) Sorry this might be my thought not yours. I mean, what if lack of generics is actually one of the greatest feature of Go and we by all means should keep it like this. The fact is Go is great and successful without it, so do we really need to add anything? Because one of the key strengths is readability and clearness which you won't see anymore. And here you are, yet another boring language (I actually liked "write-only" term from one of comments above) which lacks so many features that others "had for years". Some ppl say "give it a chance", but giving something a chance means you can accept or deny if you don't like it. It's not a case because there is no magic switch you can turn on and off. There will be no way to reverse it. вторник, 22 декабря 2020 г. в 16:07:20 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com: > You are very welcome to voice your opinion. Including the opinion that > generics should not be added to Go. > What you shouldn't do - and that's all I criticized - is to tell people > who disagree with you on that to go away. > > I also think it's not wrong to point out that claiming the original > designers of Go left out generics on purpose is, at least, distorting the > documented historical facts. Or to point out the contradiction in saying, > on the on hand, that we should listen to the original designers about what > does and does not belong into the design of Go and, on the other hand, > telling one of those exact designers that they are ruining the language. > > I'm genuinely sorry if you feel you can't voice your opinion based on my > message. But as best as I can tell, that is a reaction to a) me pointing > out exclusionary language or b) me pointing out logical problems with the > arguments presented. > And if it's a) I must insist that the paradox of tolerance > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance> informs my decision > here - if I can only choose between people feeling excluded for wanting > generics or people feeling excluded because they can't make those people > feel excluded, I will have to choose the latter. And if it's b) I must > wonder why that isn't exactly the kind of technical, logical argument y'all > are looking for. > > To be clear, again, I have plenty of problems with generics in general and > with the current stage of the design in particular. For example, I am on > record as disagreeing with making usage of operators on type-arguments a > central part of the design - I feel that it creates most of the > complication in the design and I don't feel the benefit outweigh the cost. > But I understand and respect Ian's choice on that. It's a technical point > of contention and I politely disagree with him and live with that. > > I've also said, plenty of times, that I think the main use-case for > generics seem to be type-safe containers and that I feel the benefit of > type-safety there is overstated. And experimenting > <https://blog.merovius.de/2020/07/20/parametric-context.html> with the > current design for a while reinforced my impressions that some design > decisions (like not allowing additional type-parameters on methods) hamper > at least *some* of the non-container use-cases where Go could benefit from > more type-safety. However, again, I understand why those decisions where > made and I don't know of a way to solve these issues, so I'm left with > accepting that they might be the best possible solution, even if I don't > like them. > > As it currently stands, I'm undecided if I like generics in Go and > probably lean slightly against, given the current design (and would > probably lean in favor, with some changes). The decision is not up to me > though and I'm fine disagreeing with whatever decision is made - if it > comes to that. And living with it. > > I can't imagine any of these opinions about generics to earn me scorn or > reprimands based on the CoC. Because the issue isn't *disagreeing* with > generics or with voicing that opinion. It's *how* you voice it that matters > and if you do so in a respectful and technical manner. > > PS: Just make clear that I'm not claiming I'm perfect: I have, plenty of > times in the past, said myself that people who want generics should just > use Java or C++. I'm not proud of saying that. It was a mistake. I've done > plenty of those and I will make plenty of them in the future and I can just > hope I learn from them. > > -- 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/ad31fadc-6cfe-4bbb-a84b-f8c07ed52b9fn%40googlegroups.com.
