Re: [OT] Go officially won't get generics
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 19:07:24 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: No, the context around what he said is very important. Google isn't leaving Go development, generics are not nixed for Go 2.0, the language will continue to see bug fixes. This is all very clear with context. I see this as a good. What would you rather use - a third party library written against abstractions or one written against concrete types? I would rather use a library based on concrete types. My observation is that the more abstraction people indulge, the greater the chance I will regard one of their abstractions as a code smell. And it isn't the the case that the lack of generics is inhibiting participation. Go's library selection is already very good and getting better daily. Just yesterday I needed a Go lz4 compression library and was able to find three distinct implementations. Go is not hurting for third-party libraries.
Re: [OT] Go officially won't get generics
Beyond being fodder for people who don't write Go but hate it for some reason, this seems to be an ongoing non-event. The official mailing list has practically no mention of generics anymore.
Re: D For A Web Developer
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 07:14:34 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I think one of the great things about Rails and Ruby is all the libraries and plugins that are available. If I want to do something, in RoR there's a big chance there's already a library for that. In D, there's a big chance I need to implement it myself. this has been the fundamental issue for me. its not just missing libs, its libs that are surfaced via a C-binding, which in my limited experience have been difficult to use and make portability hard. I think D is a superior language to Go, but Go has a very complete SDK and its all written in Go, so I don't have to worry about chasing down native libs to install. brad
