It's not because the arguments didn't appear numerous / convincing enough that they were not taken into account. You are just stating your incapacity to accept that you might be wrong, as anyone can, and that you cannot discuss something (clearly because you don't want to *discuss*, you want people to take everything you say for granted and absolute truth).
There have been many discussions and debates about generics (first as to whether they should be added at all, then as to how they should be implemented if ever they were), different proposals that were rejected after lots and lots of arguments on both + and - minus sides, up to where we are now. If you are not okay with generics, so be it, but one - don't manipulate facts, and second - stop being that dogmatic and negative here, please, for the sake of all of us. In advance, thanks for your time and consideration. Cheers. Le sam. 13 mars 2021 à 12:34, Space A. <reexist...@gmail.com> a écrit : > There is no rationale. They decided, and they implemented. No one from Go > team ever took the argument against it seriously because "community" > demands, blabla. And because Russ Cox with friends written an academic > paper so this is now a question of pure science. Write your own and they > could listen. (No) > > суббота, 13 марта 2021 г. в 10:07:44 UTC+3, alex-coder: > >> Hello, >> >> Thank you for the answers. >> Now I have something to read. :-) >> >> So, sorry for my English. >> Personally, I would add a dynamic dispatching into GO >> and left language without generic in order to keep simplicity for GO >> and to make life of the applied programmers easier :-) >> >> What I'm looking for is the rationale behind the technical decision >> to understand why the sort of decision has been taken. >> >> Thank you again for the answers. >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 7:15:06 AM UTC+3 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 7:31 AM alex-coder <a.gus...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello again, >>> > I apologize for being so intrusive. >>> > Where it is possible to read about the evaluations of labor and >>> complexity for >>> > GO itself for different implementations to introduce generic in GO ? >>> >>> LIke others, I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but perhaps you >>> want to look at >>> >>> >>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/generics-implementation-stenciling.md >>> >>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/generics-implementation-dictionaries.md >>> >>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/generics-implementation-gcshape.md >>> >>> Ian >>> >> -- > 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/8abb7704-ae60-4085-a7d7-0a8f7534e35dn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/8abb7704-ae60-4085-a7d7-0a8f7534e35dn%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/CAL4P9zwtF0hk3z2dHUe6BX9uhXLkfL9tZypsQMGWaXDGSv6ZZw%40mail.gmail.com.
