OOP isn't specific about how inheritance is handled (or if it is even supported). The basic definition is objects with fields and methods, and being able to address the itself (typically using 'this' or 'self', but Go is unique in that you define what to call the object). It does composition differently than most languages, but the functional needs are met.
But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems alarmist. Generics will open a huge door for libraries to be written that will make our lives easier. I'm thinking specifically about data processing and machine learning. A lot of devs use Python right now for this which leads to duplication of code across languages. Complex algorithms will be able to be shared without hacky type conversions wrapping every function call. We'll be able to use things like trees as simply as we use maps or slices. I don't think we'll see the language turn into the grossness that is Java or C++ because of it. On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 4:27:15 AM UTC-8 Space A. wrote: > Go doesn't have classes and is not an OOP language. > > Classes (like in Java) vs structs (like in Go) is about inheritance vs > composition, not about attaching fields and methods. Inheritance implies > type hierarchy, child and parent, virtual functions, abstract and final > implementations and so on so forth to keep this all of this manageable. > > > > вторник, 29 декабря 2020 г. в 23:27:45 UTC+3, Alex Besogonov: > >> Please, stop being so condescending to newcomers and non-professional >> developers. Generics as uses by end-users will improve their experience, >> not make it harder. >> >> (And what is this obsession with "classes"? Go has them - structs with >> methods are classes). >> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 1:32:30 AM UTC-8 >> rickti...@googlemail.com wrote: >> >>> My point of view is that Generics should not become part of the Go >>> standard library. I appreciate there are use cases where it is very helpful >>> to have, but I do not believe that adds value to Go. The real value for Go >>> is it's simplicity, avoidance of generics and avoidance of classes. This >>> makes the language accessible and approachable to all, which is >>> increasingly more valuable. Go appeals to new-comers and experienced >>> developers because it is simple, and comfortable. The rate of uptake in >>> computing technology is still subject to Moores law, and today we see a new >>> type of programmer emerging, the 'citizen developer'. >>> >>> Go follows time proven computational concepts, it does not follow the >>> 'new paradigm' tribes, it's roots are firmly planted in statically typed >>> procedural/functional programming techniques, and this maps well to much of >>> the literature available. The growth of entry level developers ( aka >>> 'citizen developers' ) will be exponential over the next decade, and in >>> that landscape it is Go's simplicity that will win the day. >>> >>> On Monday, 28 December 2020 at 17:35:40 UTC L Godioleskky wrote: >>> >>>> " If generics gets added to Go, we're opening a very dangerous door, and >>>> it will be the downfall of Go because - and Robert Griesemer this is >>>> especially addressed to you - what's next then? Seriously, what's next? >>>> ... " >>>> >>>> .. AI, followed by cryto currency and asexual repoduction >>>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 5:09:05 AM UTC-5 Martin Hanson wrote: >>>> >>>>> No polls. It's not a matter of majority rule! >>>>> >>>>> It's a matter of understanding why generics was left out of Go from >>>>> the >>>>> start, like classes was left out of Go. If we start adding stuff that >>>>> the original developers of Go left out by purpose, we're not >>>>> understanding the design choices that went into Go, which is exactly >>>>> what makes Go unique! >>>>> >>>>> Go was a major slap in the face to all the hype that has polluted the >>>>> programming industry for the past 30-40 years, which is why Go got so >>>>> much hate in the beginning from all the hype loving people. >>>>> >>>>> If you want to add generics to Go, if you want to change how errors >>>>> are >>>>> handled, if you want X, Y or Z feature that Java, C++, or some other >>>>> complex language has got, then go use that language! Why are you even >>>>> here!? >>>>> >>>>> The design choices that went into Go was not made randomly, nor were >>>>> they made by just anyone. Please understand that the people who >>>>> designed Go, and we all know who they are, had/has tons of experience >>>>> and the pragmatic approach they took is what make Go stand out so >>>>> beautifully! >>>>> >>>>> If generics gets added to Go, we're opening a very dangerous door, and >>>>> it will be the downfall of Go because - and Robert Griesemer this is >>>>> especially addressed to you - what's next then? Seriously, what's >>>>> next? >>>>> Let the community decide by majority!? Is that how we design a >>>>> professional programming language now? By majority rule?! NO! The >>>>> majority is all about hype and shine. >>>>> >>>>> Adding generics to Go will rip out the spine of the philosophy of Go >>>>> and I for one will not be a part of that. I have more than 30 years of >>>>> experience in the business and I fully understand why generics and >>>>> classes and all the other clutter was left out of Go. >>>>> >>>>> If generics gets added to Go, we're a big enough part of the >>>>> community, >>>>> that passionately hate that, that we can manage to fork Go - which I >>>>> strongly believe will then be the right thing to do! >>>>> >>>> -- 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/25508828-fc80-4d00-b348-406b60b9e08dn%40googlegroups.com.
