subject:"Re\: \[go\-nuts\] No generic, part \-2"

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:59 PM Kent Sandvik  wrote:

> So if I understand this correctly, you don't want to learn a new syntax in
> the language?
>

That is not what I tried to say :) I'm leaning towards being in favor of
adding generics.
I was trying to say that I think it's unavoidable that Go programmers will
have to learn to read and use generic code.
I think it's very reasonable to acknowledge and consider the downsides of a
change, while still being in favor of making it. That's kind of my point
during this entire thread - that "we decided to add generics" doesn't mean
we didn't hear or consider or even agree with the arguments against them.
We just feel that the benefits outweigh them.


>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:37 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I also think there is definitely credence to the idea that we read more
>> code than we write (after all, a lot of Go's design is based on that idea
>> too). So I definitely agree that most Go programmers will find it hard to
>> avoid generics, even if they want. Usage of the language is very likely to
>> change and generics are very likely to be used in a lot of Go code.
>>
>> So, if we didn't think generics would make the language better, we
>> shouldn't (and wouldn't) add them.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:30 PM Robert Engels 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the most plausible events are that various collections apis make
>>> it into the api as a “replacement” for the non type safe interface based
>>> ones.
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Kent Sandvik  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are
>>> bad for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of
 existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics,
 I will do it myself.

 Here is it:
 https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ



 --
 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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com
 
 .

>>> --
>>> 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/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/0868C2C5-A4D5-4D38-B0B6-D1E955EAF7A4%40ix.netcom.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAEkBMfHXZpBQSzYuck7h8b79q0D5eRYVpAgitoWuPNacJOT%3Dig%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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/CAEkBMfE8pz7m7oKuytYCs2NXks9W7rQhwSNXH3HEtyzYepiU9A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-18 Thread David Skinner

I am very much pro generics, having used them with Go for many years.

I have only found them to be occasionally useful (10%), but on those
occasions, it saves me time, improves reliability, and enhances the ability
to maintain the code.

Having a background in MASM, TASM, Forth, Lisp, C++ leaves me comfortable
with generics. Having one Java project where I was reading newbie use of
generics was a traumatic experience that still gives me nightmares. So I
totally respect those opposed to the generics.

New programmers do not need to learn about reflection, or generics, or
goroutines to create modest programs that do extraordinary things. But as
they advance by reading legacy code, and learning examples, these are
things that they need to add to their toolbox. It does not matter to me if
generics are added to the language or not as I have generics, but anyone
reading my code must learn my version of generics implemented with
+generate. So having a standardized version is great. And if it is not part
of the language, you will still have to learn it and read and use it. I see
no point at this time to not having a standard generics and have it fully
implemented into the compiler, there is no significant long-term
downside, only an improvement in productivity.

Some members of the Go team have used my version of generics and felt that
it could be much better, and I agree. This change is not based on a whim,
it is based on decades of experience and a decade of preparation.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:20 AM Kent Sandvik  wrote:

> I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are bad
> for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them?
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of
>> existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics,
>> I will do it myself.
>>
>> Here is it:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 

Respectfully submitted,
David Lynn Skinner
Secretary, Davsk Ltd Co

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received
this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not
disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
[image: App Green Footer Image] Be like me, be Carbon free - don't print
this and save a tree

"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." -
Albert Einstein.
   [image: App Video Meeting Image]
 Meet me on Zoom

Check out my blog [image: arrow] 

-- 
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/CAGe8nGFCMxVVYDFsZ1%2BS26T0UX_%2BMs1SovAdC55xQ1y5eLjy9A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-18 Thread Kent Sandvik

So if I understand this correctly, you don't want to learn a new syntax in
the language?

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:37 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I also think there is definitely credence to the idea that we read more
> code than we write (after all, a lot of Go's design is based on that idea
> too). So I definitely agree that most Go programmers will find it hard to
> avoid generics, even if they want. Usage of the language is very likely to
> change and generics are very likely to be used in a lot of Go code.
>
> So, if we didn't think generics would make the language better, we
> shouldn't (and wouldn't) add them.
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:30 PM Robert Engels 
> wrote:
>
>> I think the most plausible events are that various collections apis make
>> it into the api as a “replacement” for the non type safe interface based
>> ones.
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Kent Sandvik  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are
>> bad for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them?
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of
>>> existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics,
>>> I will do it myself.
>>>
>>> Here is it:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> --
>> 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/0868C2C5-A4D5-4D38-B0B6-D1E955EAF7A4%40ix.netcom.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAEkBMfHXZpBQSzYuck7h8b79q0D5eRYVpAgitoWuPNacJOT%3Dig%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAHC_roFk_3Q0sWLrzZRgHZ_VhF1J0HFbsY_B5_q7uX9HDn5Gdg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I also think there is definitely credence to the idea that we read more
code than we write (after all, a lot of Go's design is based on that idea
too). So I definitely agree that most Go programmers will find it hard to
avoid generics, even if they want. Usage of the language is very likely to
change and generics are very likely to be used in a lot of Go code.

So, if we didn't think generics would make the language better, we
shouldn't (and wouldn't) add them.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:30 PM Robert Engels  wrote:

> I think the most plausible events are that various collections apis make
> it into the api as a “replacement” for the non type safe interface based
> ones.
>
> On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Kent Sandvik  wrote:
>
> 
> I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are bad
> for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them?
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of
>> existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics,
>> I will do it myself.
>>
>> Here is it:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> --
> 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/0868C2C5-A4D5-4D38-B0B6-D1E955EAF7A4%40ix.netcom.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAEkBMfHXZpBQSzYuck7h8b79q0D5eRYVpAgitoWuPNacJOT%3Dig%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-18 Thread Robert Engels

I think the most plausible events are that various collections apis make it 
into the api as a “replacement” for the non type safe interface based ones. 

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Kent Sandvik  wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are bad 
> for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them?
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A.  wrote:
>> Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of 
>> existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics, I 
>> will do it myself.
>> 
>> Here is it: 
>> https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com.
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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/0868C2C5-A4D5-4D38-B0B6-D1E955EAF7A4%40ix.netcom.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-18 Thread Kent Sandvik

I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are bad
for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them?

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A.  wrote:

> Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of
> existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics,
> I will do it myself.
>
> Here is it:
> https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ
>
>
>
> --
> 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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of 
existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics, 
I will do it myself.

Here is it: 
https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ



-- 
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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

The same as you just did, completely ignored everything I said in this
thread.

чт, 18 мар. 2021 г. в 16:25, Axel Wagner :

> I find your response disrespectful. You are completely ignoring (in the
> sense of "refusing to take notice of") what I wrote.
> I don't think it is possible to have a productive conversation as long as
> you behave this way.
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:48 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> That's exactly what I'm saying, topic of dropping generics was never
>> raised, so landing of some version of generics was implied by the process.
>> In fact just a start of that process implied that dropping them entirely
>> was never a question. There was no public discussion with that regard, no
>> poll or anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> четверг, 18 марта 2021 г. в 15:42:44 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com:
>>
>>> ISTM that we already provided a bunch of evidence, which you are
>>> rejecting. so "any evidence" clearly is not good enough and you should be a
>>> bit more specific.
>>>
>>> Just to name a few specific examples of evidence provided:
>>> • The FAQ, as well as any interview of the question, have stated clearly
>>> that generics *may* be added, if a satisfying design is found. "May", not
>>> "will".
>>> • The proposal process
>>>  clearly
>>> mentions the option to reject a proposal.
>>> • This push for including generics started simultaneously, using the
>>> same process , as both the "Error
>>> handling" and the "Error values" designs. "Error values" was accepted and
>>> "Error handling" was rejected as results of that process, so rejection was
>>> clearly a possible outcome.
>>> • Since then, there have been numerous blog posts, threads on this
>>> mailing list, talks at conferences and appearances on podcasts by the Go
>>> team. All of them mention the possibility that generics might not happen.
>>> All threads (that I'm aware of) publicly discussing generics discuss the
>>> option not to include them at all at least once.
>>>
>>> I really don't think it's too much to ask, what level of evidence you
>>> are actually looking for. I also strongly feel that the case made by us is
>>> stronger than the case made that there was no discussion about giving up on
>>> generics. The latter seems - as far as I can tell - mainly rely on a)
>>> interpreting statements by members of the Go team in ways incompatible with
>>> the actual words being said and b) speculating about the management process
>>> at Google - without any evidence to base this speculation on.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:11 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
 example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
 good answer to that question?  Thanks.

 Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that
 there was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your
 daily agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such
 as first class Android support.

 ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 22:44, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?
>
> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
> good answer to that question?  Thanks.
>
> 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/1624a7bf-1418-4a24-9e11-5ba8c76852b3n%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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/CADKwOTdE5JkAqrq1q%3DMerb%2BXGjZFCxYN-KZrb5mgctTGCbL7YQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I find your response disrespectful. You are completely ignoring (in the
sense of "refusing to take notice of") what I wrote.
I don't think it is possible to have a productive conversation as long as
you behave this way.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:48 PM Space A.  wrote:

> That's exactly what I'm saying, topic of dropping generics was never
> raised, so landing of some version of generics was implied by the process.
> In fact just a start of that process implied that dropping them entirely
> was never a question. There was no public discussion with that regard, no
> poll or anything.
>
>
>
> четверг, 18 марта 2021 г. в 15:42:44 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com:
>
>> ISTM that we already provided a bunch of evidence, which you are
>> rejecting. so "any evidence" clearly is not good enough and you should be a
>> bit more specific.
>>
>> Just to name a few specific examples of evidence provided:
>> • The FAQ, as well as any interview of the question, have stated clearly
>> that generics *may* be added, if a satisfying design is found. "May", not
>> "will".
>> • The proposal process
>>  clearly
>> mentions the option to reject a proposal.
>> • This push for including generics started simultaneously, using the
>> same process , as both the "Error
>> handling" and the "Error values" designs. "Error values" was accepted and
>> "Error handling" was rejected as results of that process, so rejection was
>> clearly a possible outcome.
>> • Since then, there have been numerous blog posts, threads on this
>> mailing list, talks at conferences and appearances on podcasts by the Go
>> team. All of them mention the possibility that generics might not happen.
>> All threads (that I'm aware of) publicly discussing generics discuss the
>> option not to include them at all at least once.
>>
>> I really don't think it's too much to ask, what level of evidence you are
>> actually looking for. I also strongly feel that the case made by us is
>> stronger than the case made that there was no discussion about giving up on
>> generics. The latter seems - as far as I can tell - mainly rely on a)
>> interpreting statements by members of the Go team in ways incompatible with
>> the actual words being said and b) speculating about the management process
>> at Google - without any evidence to base this speculation on.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:11 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
>>> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
>>> good answer to that question?  Thanks.
>>>
>>> Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there
>>> was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily
>>> agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as
>>> first class Android support.
>>>
>>> ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 22:44, Ian Lance Taylor :
>>>
 On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A.  wrote:
 >
 > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?

 What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
 example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
 good answer to that question?  Thanks.

 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/1624a7bf-1418-4a24-9e11-5ba8c76852b3n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAEkBMfGYysAwJ59wqWwb4eC4_Th8Kzsbo_G1jm1nE_aYnDWFRw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-18 Thread Robert Engels

One other point on this. Generics will be trivial for 95% of the people - they 
will only need to be able to read and write the instantiation statements of 
type safe collections. 

Most developers don’t write the generic implementations - these are provided by 
library authors. 

As I’ve said before, I would of taken a more go-like approach - generics seem 
too technical for most go developers - but in the end they will be a net 
benefit. 

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 8:28 PM, Robert Engels  wrote:
> 
> 
> Very well said. 
> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2021, at 7:04 PM, Jeremy French  wrote:
>>> 
>> I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision 
>> that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the 
>> discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet... it 
>> continues.
>> 
>> For context, I was against the generics proposal, primarily because it would 
>> make *my* life more complicated, while not providing *me* that much benefit. 
>>  I raised the concerns I had, especially in regards to the "if you don't 
>> like it, don't use it" arguments. I participated in a couple conversations 
>> on this mailing list.  In the end, I was fairly convinced that there were 
>> others in the community (and the community as a whole) who would benefit 
>> from the change far more than what it would cost me, and resigned myself to 
>> the change.
>> 
>> All of that is just to establish my bona fides.  If I were inclined to be 
>> biased on this topic, it would be against the Go team, not in their favor.  
>> 
>> And yet, I can say unequivocally that any suggestion that the Go team has 
>> railroaded this proposal through, or has ignored the concerns of its user 
>> base, is pure fiction.  Every single concern or question I've seen raised 
>> has been addressed respectfully and at face value - even, I would say - 
>> several concerns or complaints on this side of the argument that perhaps 
>> reasonably could have been scoffed at or dismissed as just stupid.  They 
>> have been respectful and attentive at every turn.  I don't necessarily agree 
>> or like the decision they made, but these character assassinations against 
>> them or implications that they are subject to corruption from their 
>> corporate parent have no supporting evidence that I've seen, including any 
>> presented in this thread.
>> 
>> It seems pretty clear that they are passionate about the health and 
>> longevity of the project, and are in the unenviable position of having to 
>> make a decision that is guaranteed to make some people angry no matter what 
>> they decide.  But in the end, it is their call to make, and they made it the 
>> best way they could think of to do so.  You can't ask any more than that.
>> 
>>> On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM atd...@gmail.com  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity 
>>> > votes is not a good measure of things. 
>>> > A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in 
>>> > computer science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to 
>>> > the more technical opinions that is not reflected in the github 
>>> > upvote/downvote system. 
>>> > At one point, everyone would have upvoted that the earth was flat. 
>>> > 
>>> > Just a note in passing :) 
>>> 
>>> Yes. I am not saying that the proposal was adopted because it had 
>>> good support. I am arguing against the suggestion that the proposal 
>>> should not have been adopted because it had a lot of critics. 
>>> 
>>> Ian 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:03:50 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: 
>>> >> 
>>> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote: 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of 
>>> >> > https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md.
>>> >> >  
>>> >> > None of them have been adopted. 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was 
>>> >> > withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community. 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of 
>>> >> > critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal 
>>> >> > publication on github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What 
>>> >> > does it mean? Who are these people who can change the consensus? How 
>>> >> > was it measured? A few days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even 
>>> >> > say a word against it if they wanted. So it looks very much that 
>>> >> > company management learned from "try" proposal. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became 
>>> >> a formal proposal. It was not new. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs 
>>> >> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were cri

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

That's exactly what I'm saying, topic of dropping generics was never 
raised, so landing of some version of generics was implied by the process. 
In fact just a start of that process implied that dropping them entirely 
was never a question. There was no public discussion with that regard, no 
poll or anything.



четверг, 18 марта 2021 г. в 15:42:44 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com: 

> ISTM that we already provided a bunch of evidence, which you are 
> rejecting. so "any evidence" clearly is not good enough and you should be a 
> bit more specific.
>
> Just to name a few specific examples of evidence provided:
> • The FAQ, as well as any interview of the question, have stated clearly 
> that generics *may* be added, if a satisfying design is found. "May", not 
> "will".
> • The proposal process 
>  clearly 
> mentions the option to reject a proposal.
> • This push for including generics started simultaneously, using the same 
> process , as both the "Error handling" 
> and the "Error values" designs. "Error values" was accepted and "Error 
> handling" was rejected as results of that process, so rejection was clearly 
> a possible outcome.
> • Since then, there have been numerous blog posts, threads on this mailing 
> list, talks at conferences and appearances on podcasts by the Go team. All 
> of them mention the possibility that generics might not happen. All threads 
> (that I'm aware of) publicly discussing generics discuss the option not to 
> include them at all at least once.
>
> I really don't think it's too much to ask, what level of evidence you are 
> actually looking for. I also strongly feel that the case made by us is 
> stronger than the case made that there was no discussion about giving up on 
> generics. The latter seems - as far as I can tell - mainly rely on a) 
> interpreting statements by members of the Go team in ways incompatible with 
> the actual words being said and b) speculating about the management process 
> at Google - without any evidence to base this speculation on.
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:11 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
>> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
>> good answer to that question?  Thanks. 
>>
>> Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there 
>> was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily 
>> agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as 
>> first class Android support.
>>
>> ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 22:44, Ian Lance Taylor :
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A.  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?
>>>
>>> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
>>> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
>>> good answer to that question?  Thanks.
>>>
>>> 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/1624a7bf-1418-4a24-9e11-5ba8c76852b3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

ISTM that we already provided a bunch of evidence, which you are rejecting.
so "any evidence" clearly is not good enough and you should be a bit more
specific.

Just to name a few specific examples of evidence provided:
• The FAQ, as well as any interview of the question, have stated clearly
that generics *may* be added, if a satisfying design is found. "May", not
"will".
• The proposal process
 clearly mentions
the option to reject a proposal.
• This push for including generics started simultaneously, using the same
process , as both the "Error handling"
and the "Error values" designs. "Error values" was accepted and "Error
handling" was rejected as results of that process, so rejection was clearly
a possible outcome.
• Since then, there have been numerous blog posts, threads on this mailing
list, talks at conferences and appearances on podcasts by the Go team. All
of them mention the possibility that generics might not happen. All threads
(that I'm aware of) publicly discussing generics discuss the option not to
include them at all at least once.

I really don't think it's too much to ask, what level of evidence you are
actually looking for. I also strongly feel that the case made by us is
stronger than the case made that there was no discussion about giving up on
generics. The latter seems - as far as I can tell - mainly rely on a)
interpreting statements by members of the Go team in ways incompatible with
the actual words being said and b) speculating about the management process
at Google - without any evidence to base this speculation on.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:11 PM Space A.  wrote:

> > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
> good answer to that question?  Thanks.
>
> Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there
> was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily
> agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as
> first class Android support.
>
> ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 22:44, Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A.  wrote:
>> >
>> > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?
>>
>> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
>> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
>> good answer to that question?  Thanks.
>>
>> 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/CAEkBMfGnwhTuFHu0HvJrtymvWsazxAh-ijZYX%2BDjuV3L7FoukA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-18 Thread ma...@eliasnaur.com

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 13:11:33 UTC+1 Space A. wrote:

> > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
> good answer to that question?  Thanks. 
>
> Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there 
> was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily 
> agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as 
> first class Android support.
>
>
Not only is this argument arrogant in judging importance on behalf of Ian 
(or the Go team), it is also invalid; all proposals, including generics, 
are judged on their merits, not in an importance competition with all other 
proposals.

Elias

-- 
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/3dbb1fb2-5cd1-43db-a97c-e1ad1758a026n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
good answer to that question?  Thanks.

Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there
was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily
agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as
first class Android support.

ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 22:44, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?
>
> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
> good answer to that question?  Thanks.
>
> 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/CADKwOTe94%2BPj6pQ%3DnW3FLez-aLMUN9%3DjRJBUnXCyferTRZeYwg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-17 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?

What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable?  Can you give an
example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
good answer to that question?  Thanks.

Ian



> ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 02:12, Ian Lance Taylor :
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:51 AM Space A.  wrote:
>> >
>> > > (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion - 
>> > > which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There 
>> > > was over three years of active discussion on this)
>> >
>> > No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea 
>> > of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a 
>> > "discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not 
>> > of generics themselves as something to be avoided by all means.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that simply isn't the case.  Many different people at
>> many different times suggested that the idea of adding generics should
>> be dropped.  Those ideas were discussed, supported, opposed, and so
>> forth.  It's been a long discussion over many years.
>>
>> 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/CAOyqgcVQ4eps9NpQrxYOVGg3n%3DUnWpB_xwHfgN3NEeP9Ppm%2Bfw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-17 Thread Space A.

I can, and I searched, and right answer is there was no open public
discussion on dropping Generics proposal entirely, only "counterproposals".
But it's a no brainer that if you propose anything other than "No Generics,
never" you will end up with some form of them.



ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 14:57, Wojciech S. Czarnecki :

> Dnia 2021-03-17, o godz. 14:27:51
> "Space A."  napisał(a):
>
> > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?
>
> Can't you search for yourself? When I submitted my rough counterproposal
> there
> were already over 50 others linked at Team's (compile contracts one).
> Wasn't it a discussion then?
>
> Talking current proposal: brackets in syntax are the most visible effect
> of the Team
> having open discussion with "us". "We" barked at "unbearable
> parenthesosis" and
> "our" voice was taken into account.
>
> So please stop stretching this thread — all its yaks already are hairless.
>
> --
> Wojciech S. Czarnecki
>  << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/20210317125511.46a0698d%40xmint
> .
>

-- 
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/CADKwOTdu%3DsEFYnNaPK1CcqdkpAoszNwF%2BEQvO%2B6U6pDgSJHiOg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-17 Thread Wojciech S. Czarnecki

Dnia 2021-03-17, o godz. 14:27:51
"Space A."  napisał(a):

> Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?

Can't you search for yourself? When I submitted my rough counterproposal there
were already over 50 others linked at Team's (compile contracts one).
Wasn't it a discussion then?

Talking current proposal: brackets in syntax are the most visible effect of the 
Team
having open discussion with "us". "We" barked at "unbearable parenthesosis" and
"our" voice was taken into account.

So please stop stretching this thread — all its yaks already are hairless.

-- 
Wojciech S. Czarnecki
 << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE

-- 
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/20210317125511.46a0698d%40xmint.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-17 Thread Space A.

Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion?



ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 02:12, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:51 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > > (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion -
> which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was
> over three years of active discussion on this)
> >
> > No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the
> idea of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a
> "discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not
> of generics themselves as something to be avoided by all means.
>
> I'm sorry, but that simply isn't the case.  Many different people at
> many different times suggested that the idea of adding generics should
> be dropped.  Those ideas were discussed, supported, opposed, and so
> forth.  It's been a long discussion over many years.
>
> 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/CADKwOTea5cyYwcEQygc_LT6AAJAez2jgVQsuS%2Bm72KQCnKcLEg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-17 Thread Space A.

> Russ locked the proposal issue after it was accepted.

Proposal published on 12 Jan
Russ "accepted" it on 10 Feb
Russ locked it on 20 Feb with
" That is our usual way of using issues, but this issue continues to gather
comments that are not relevant to tracking the work of implementing the
proposal. "

Yep, sure.

ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 02:08, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > > The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
> > a formal proposal.  It was not new.
> >
> > There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look
> only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And
> what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that
> process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to
> come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone
> that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that
> stuff.
>
> I think we've been clear as we were able about the process over the
> past several years.  I'm sorry that it wasn't clear to you.
>
>
> > > The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
> > up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
> > But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
> > supporters than critics.
> >
> > LOL. You LOCKED that issue (including emojis!). You locked because Russ
> or whoever is responsible for the process in the company, was afraid that
> it will be like with "try" proposal. So please don't. And are you saying
> that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or "confused" were
> collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with that system right?
>
> Russ locked the proposal issue after it was accepted.
>
> 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/CADKwOTdKng9wJnwwFasuX2Raow0CWTTzjFX-hQaDa98_eJoZsA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:51 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> > (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion - 
> > which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was 
> > over three years of active discussion on this)
>
> No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea of 
> generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a "discussion" 
> of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not of generics 
> themselves as something to be avoided by all means.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't the case.  Many different people at
many different times suggested that the idea of adding generics should
be dropped.  Those ideas were discussed, supported, opposed, and so
forth.  It's been a long discussion over many years.

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/CAOyqgcUTgn39EgFo9xfjy%2B1C0crMVEuHv7%3D%3DP2w0LvHHATrqWA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> > The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
> a formal proposal.  It was not new.
>
> There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only at 
> the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's the 
> point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that process? Once you 
> published, please notify everyone and give them time to come back with 
> critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone that there is 
> any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that stuff.

I think we've been clear as we were able about the process over the
past several years.  I'm sorry that it wasn't clear to you.


> > The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
> supporters than critics.
>
> LOL. You LOCKED that issue (including emojis!). You locked because Russ or 
> whoever is responsible for the process in the company, was afraid that it 
> will be like with "try" proposal. So please don't. And are you saying that 
> "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or "confused" were collected? You 
> know that it's pretty easy to cheat with that system right?

Russ locked the proposal issue after it was accepted.

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/CAOyqgcXiOVWwV0gdeRXht1P0J81x%2BCrES7oFJQc%2B2Onw6gFE3w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:10 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - We can create a hypothesis, that if only people coding in Go for
> more than N years, the results may get very different or even
> inverted. Due to the above we cannot decide the validity of the
> hypothesis. The validity could be, or could have been somehow
> estimated by asking a smaller corpus of well known Go developers. Not
> meant as a decisive body. Just to get some more reliable data. The
> Github votes are, technically speaking, not distinguishable from
> noise, ad hoc brigading, etc.

I just want to note that we did in fact reach out to a number of
experienced Go developers with early versions of the design draft to
get their feedback before we published it
(https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/go2draft-type-parameters.md#acknowledgements)
(we reached out to other people not mentioned who did not have time to
participate).


> - Regardless of the endless promotion of inclusiveness, the voting
> using the service of a single and notoriously controversial provider
> of said service ignores, or excludes if you will, people not using
> that service for any reason, not only the one I just mentioned.
>
> In the light of the above, it's a bit surprising that the voting
> results are even seriously mentioned in this discussion.

Fair enough.  I cite numbers like these, and the comments on the Go
survey, because they are the only numbers I have.  But you're clearly
right that they are problematic.

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/CAOyqgcVMuaV1_tOwSoOxY%3Dn%3DoJxcLO2jTDoxitK9pN51pKEOCw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

One more person pro-generics switching the topic to my personality and
telling me what to do and what my problem is.

вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 18:26, CreateSpaceMap :

> Sorry, I might sound a little blunt but this pique my curiosity, how much
> time have you invest in Go and what do you earn for a living? You can
> assure Go didn't just happen to be popular, they are built with blood and
> sweat, what have you done along the way? Countless of developers accept
> Generics that include me, not so bad when you already knew how other
> programming language and industry have evolved in the last 10 to 20 years.
>
> Honestly, it's your own space and time problem if you don't have time to
> invest in change because you didn't want to be change or the web didn't
> evolve. You should step out of your comfortable zone or space and do what
> you could improve your community, not the other way round to please you, it
> doesn't happen in this planet. Generics is only a small part in Go with
> minimal impact compare to other programming languages with ton of pain to
> relearn.
>
> You have probably heard V language has generic?
>
> On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 8:24:27 PM UTC+8 Space A. wrote:
>
>> > This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
>> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
>> When the contracts design was announced in 2018
>> , the process was explained. Including
>> the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions, that this
>> process will likely take a couple of years and how we can participate in
>> it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it for what it
>> was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea of generics
>> in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure the outcome
>> was a good design or a rejection.
>>
>> That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't
>> invest so much time because we have to earn money for living.
>>
>> > Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this
>> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of
>> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.
>>
>> I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as
>> simple as that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:05, Axel Wagner :
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look
 only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And
 what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that
 process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to
 come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone
 that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that
 stuff.

>>>
>>> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
>>> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
>>> When the contracts design was announced in 2018
>>> , the process was explained.
>>> Including the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions,
>>> that this process will likely take a couple of years and how we can
>>> participate in it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it
>>> for what it was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea
>>> of generics in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure
>>> the outcome was a good design or a rejection.
>>>
>>> So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith argue
>>> that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the
>>> intention not announced. It was announced on the largest Go conference in
>>> the world, accompanied by a blog post and several threads on golang-nuts
>>> and golang-dev. With regular updates on the progress, again at most of the
>>> large Go conferences, the blog, on this mailing list, several times on the
>>> largest community-run Go podcast and in basically every medium I can think
>>> of.
>>>
>>> If you didn't want or didn't have the time to participate in the
>>> process, that's certainly unfortunate. But I believe it is fair to say that
>>> the Go team went above and beyond to make the process as broadly accessible
>>> and known as they can.
>>>
>>> And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or
 "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with
 that system right?

>>>
>>> Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this
>>> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of
>>> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.
>>>
>>> Again, it is very hard to interpret your words and actions in good faith
>>> here.
>>>
>>>

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread CreateSpaceMap

Sorry, I might sound a little blunt but this pique my curiosity, how much 
time have you invest in Go and what do you earn for a living? You can 
assure Go didn't just happen to be popular, they are built with blood and 
sweat, what have you done along the way? Countless of developers accept 
Generics that include me, not so bad when you already knew how other 
programming language and industry have evolved in the last 10 to 20 years.

Honestly, it's your own space and time problem if you don't have time to 
invest in change because you didn't want to be change or the web didn't 
evolve. You should step out of your comfortable zone or space and do what 
you could improve your community, not the other way round to please you, it 
doesn't happen in this planet. Generics is only a small part in Go with 
minimal impact compare to other programming languages with ton of pain to 
relearn.

You have probably heard V language has generic?

On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 8:24:27 PM UTC+8 Space A. wrote:

> > This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which 
> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years. 
> When the contracts design was announced in 2018 
> , the process was explained. Including 
> the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions, that this 
> process will likely take a couple of years and how we can participate in 
> it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it for what it 
> was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea of generics 
> in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure the outcome 
> was a good design or a rejection. 
>
> That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't 
> invest so much time because we have to earn money for living.
>
> > Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this 
> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of 
> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run. 
>
> I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as simple 
> as that.
>
>
>
>
> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:05, Axel Wagner :
>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look 
>>> only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And 
>>> what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that 
>>> process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to 
>>> come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone 
>>> that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that 
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>
>> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which 
>> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years. 
>> When the contracts design was announced in 2018 
>> , the process was explained. Including 
>> the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions, that this 
>> process will likely take a couple of years and how we can participate in 
>> it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it for what it 
>> was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea of generics 
>> in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure the outcome 
>> was a good design or a rejection.
>>
>> So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith argue 
>> that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the 
>> intention not announced. It was announced on the largest Go conference in 
>> the world, accompanied by a blog post and several threads on golang-nuts 
>> and golang-dev. With regular updates on the progress, again at most of the 
>> large Go conferences, the blog, on this mailing list, several times on the 
>> largest community-run Go podcast and in basically every medium I can think 
>> of.
>>
>> If you didn't want or didn't have the time to participate in the process, 
>> that's certainly unfortunate. But I believe it is fair to say that the Go 
>> team went above and beyond to make the process as broadly accessible and 
>> known as they can.
>>
>> And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or 
>>> "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with 
>>> that system right?
>>>
>>
>> Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this 
>> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of 
>> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.
>>
>> Again, it is very hard to interpret your words and actions in good faith 
>> here.
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 01:03, Ian Lance Taylor :
>>>
 On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
 >
 > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
 > 
 https://go.googlesource.com/pro

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:51 PM Space A.  wrote:

> No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea
> of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a
> "discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not
> of generics themselves as something to be avoided by all means.
>

Okay. I can only repeat that "we are not going to add generics" was the
most likely consequence of "we don't accept this design". So given that
there was a discussion whether or not we want to accept this design (or
what modification of it we might accept) constituted a discussion on if we
want to add generics.

That's the process for Go language development. There is a proposal and it
either gets accepted or refined or rejected. Generics where no different in
this regard - except maybe in the sense that there was more discussion than
usual and the proposal was more thoroughly discussed and refined before
being filed. But note that it's not uncommon for language changes to be
discussed and refined before a proposal is filed either.

> My main complaint is that I think what Go team is doing right now is
> destructive and goes against Go core values,
>

So, AIUI, the core complaint is that they are disagreeing with you on this.
That's understandably frustrating, but also a natural part and frequent
outcome of discussions. It's not really a complaint that can be addressed,
because if they agreed with you, someone else could have the same complaint
about *not* adding generics.

ISTM you just have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone will
always agree with you.

> such as simplicity over cleverness. And despite being claimed Go team
> doesn't know a way of improving language, other than adding features.
>
>
>
> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 16:25, Axel Wagner :
>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't
>>> invest so much time because we have to earn money for living.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, I understand that reality. It is unfortunate, but given that
>> language design takes time and effort, I don't really know a better way to
>> do it, that makes it accessible to people who don't have those resources
>> available.
>>
>>
>>> I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as
>>> simple as that.
>>>
>>
>> While true, that makes your complaint even harder to understand to me.
>> If your complaint was that there should have been a poll, it would be
>> rooted in a true observation - there was none. And we could then talk about
>> why we don't believe polls are a good way to do language design.
>> If your complaint was that you didn't have time to participate in the
>> discussion, that's also rooted in a true observation. But I don't
>> understand what you would have expected the Go team to do about it. It is
>> hardly their fault that you are forced by the system we live in to
>> deprioritize Go language development.
>> (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion -
>> which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was
>> over three years of active discussion on this)
>>
>> I simply don't understand what you expected to happen. As I said, I don't
>> really know a way to include people that both a) dosen't require any time
>> on their part and b) isn't a poll, with all its methodological problems.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:05, Axel Wagner >> >:
>>>
 On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:

> There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look
> only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And
> what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that
> process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to
> come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or 
> anyone
> that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that
> stuff.
>

 This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
 *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
 When the contracts design was announced in 2018
 , the process was explained.
 Including the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions,
 that this process will likely take a couple of years and how we can
 participate in it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it
 for what it was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea
 of generics in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure
 the outcome was a good design or a rejection.

 So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith
 argue that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the
 intention not announced. It was announc

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion -
which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was
over three years of active discussion on this)

No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea
of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a
"discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not
of generics themselves as something to be avoided by all means.

My main complaint is that I think what Go team is doing right now is
destructive and goes against Go core values, such as simplicity over
cleverness. And despite being claimed Go team doesn't know a way of
improving language, other than adding features.



вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 16:25, Axel Wagner :

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't
>> invest so much time because we have to earn money for living.
>>
>
> As I said, I understand that reality. It is unfortunate, but given that
> language design takes time and effort, I don't really know a better way to
> do it, that makes it accessible to people who don't have those resources
> available.
>
>
>> I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as
>> simple as that.
>>
>
> While true, that makes your complaint even harder to understand to me.
> If your complaint was that there should have been a poll, it would be
> rooted in a true observation - there was none. And we could then talk about
> why we don't believe polls are a good way to do language design.
> If your complaint was that you didn't have time to participate in the
> discussion, that's also rooted in a true observation. But I don't
> understand what you would have expected the Go team to do about it. It is
> hardly their fault that you are forced by the system we live in to
> deprioritize Go language development.
> (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion -
> which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was
> over three years of active discussion on this)
>
> I simply don't understand what you expected to happen. As I said, I don't
> really know a way to include people that both a) dosen't require any time
> on their part and b) isn't a poll, with all its methodological problems.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:05, Axel Wagner :
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look
 only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And
 what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that
 process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to
 come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone
 that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that
 stuff.

>>>
>>> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
>>> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
>>> When the contracts design was announced in 2018
>>> , the process was explained.
>>> Including the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions,
>>> that this process will likely take a couple of years and how we can
>>> participate in it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it
>>> for what it was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea
>>> of generics in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure
>>> the outcome was a good design or a rejection.
>>>
>>> So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith argue
>>> that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the
>>> intention not announced. It was announced on the largest Go conference in
>>> the world, accompanied by a blog post and several threads on golang-nuts
>>> and golang-dev. With regular updates on the progress, again at most of the
>>> large Go conferences, the blog, on this mailing list, several times on the
>>> largest community-run Go podcast and in basically every medium I can think
>>> of.
>>>
>>> If you didn't want or didn't have the time to participate in the
>>> process, that's certainly unfortunate. But I believe it is fair to say that
>>> the Go team went above and beyond to make the process as broadly accessible
>>> and known as they can.
>>>
>>> And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or
 "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with
 that system right?

>>>
>>> Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this
>>> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of
>>> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.
>>>
>>> Again, it is very hard to interpret your words and actions in good faith
>>> here.
>>>
>>>


>

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Space A.  wrote:

> That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't
> invest so much time because we have to earn money for living.
>

As I said, I understand that reality. It is unfortunate, but given that
language design takes time and effort, I don't really know a better way to
do it, that makes it accessible to people who don't have those resources
available.


> I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as simple
> as that.
>

While true, that makes your complaint even harder to understand to me.
If your complaint was that there should have been a poll, it would be
rooted in a true observation - there was none. And we could then talk about
why we don't believe polls are a good way to do language design.
If your complaint was that you didn't have time to participate in the
discussion, that's also rooted in a true observation. But I don't
understand what you would have expected the Go team to do about it. It is
hardly their fault that you are forced by the system we live in to
deprioritize Go language development.
(To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion -
which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was
over three years of active discussion on this)

I simply don't understand what you expected to happen. As I said, I don't
really know a way to include people that both a) dosen't require any time
on their part and b) isn't a poll, with all its methodological problems.


>
>
>
>
> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:05, Axel Wagner :
>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look
>>> only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And
>>> what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that
>>> process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to
>>> come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone
>>> that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>
>> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
>> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
>> When the contracts design was announced in 2018
>> , the process was explained. Including
>> the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions, that this
>> process will likely take a couple of years and how we can participate in
>> it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it for what it
>> was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea of generics
>> in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure the outcome
>> was a good design or a rejection.
>>
>> So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith argue
>> that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the
>> intention not announced. It was announced on the largest Go conference in
>> the world, accompanied by a blog post and several threads on golang-nuts
>> and golang-dev. With regular updates on the progress, again at most of the
>> large Go conferences, the blog, on this mailing list, several times on the
>> largest community-run Go podcast and in basically every medium I can think
>> of.
>>
>> If you didn't want or didn't have the time to participate in the process,
>> that's certainly unfortunate. But I believe it is fair to say that the Go
>> team went above and beyond to make the process as broadly accessible and
>> known as they can.
>>
>> And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or
>>> "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with
>>> that system right?
>>>
>>
>> Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this
>> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of
>> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.
>>
>> Again, it is very hard to interpret your words and actions in good faith
>> here.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 01:03, Ian Lance Taylor :
>>>
 On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
 >
 > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
 >
 https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
 .
 > None of them have been adopted.
 >
 > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It
 was withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
 >
 > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot
 of critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication
 on github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who
 are these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few
 days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they
>>

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
*did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
When the contracts design was announced in 2018
, the process was explained. Including
the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions, that this
process will likely take a couple of years and how we can participate in
it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it for what it
was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea of generics
in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure the outcome
was a good design or a rejection.

That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't invest
so much time because we have to earn money for living.

> Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this
thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of
that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.

I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as simple
as that.




вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 15:05, Axel Wagner :

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only
>> at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's
>> the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that process?
>> Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to come back
>> with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone that
>> there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that stuff.
>>
>
> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which
> *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years.
> When the contracts design was announced in 2018
> , the process was explained. Including
> the fact that it is a draft, which will see several revisions, that this
> process will likely take a couple of years and how we can participate in
> it. Many of us have seen that announcement and understood it for what it
> was and thus - even if (like me) they were opposed to the idea of generics
> in Go - decided to participate in it to do their best to ensure the outcome
> was a good design or a rejection.
>
> So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith argue
> that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the
> intention not announced. It was announced on the largest Go conference in
> the world, accompanied by a blog post and several threads on golang-nuts
> and golang-dev. With regular updates on the progress, again at most of the
> large Go conferences, the blog, on this mailing list, several times on the
> largest community-run Go podcast and in basically every medium I can think
> of.
>
> If you didn't want or didn't have the time to participate in the process,
> that's certainly unfortunate. But I believe it is fair to say that the Go
> team went above and beyond to make the process as broadly accessible and
> known as they can.
>
> And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or
>> "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with
>> that system right?
>>
>
> Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this
> thread to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of
> that idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.
>
> Again, it is very hard to interpret your words and actions in good faith
> here.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 01:03, Ian Lance Taylor :
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
>>> >
>>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
>>> .
>>> > None of them have been adopted.
>>> >
>>> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was
>>> withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
>>> >
>>> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of
>>> critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on
>>> github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are
>>> these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days
>>> after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they
>>> wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try"
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
>>> a formal proposal.  It was not new.
>>>
>>> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
>>> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
>>> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
>>> supporters than critics.
>>>
>>> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the disc

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-16 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A.  wrote:

> There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only
> at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's
> the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that process?
> Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to come back
> with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone that
> there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that stuff.
>

This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which *did*
invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years. When the
contracts design was announced in 2018 ,
the process was explained. Including the fact that it is a draft, which
will see several revisions, that this process will likely take a couple of
years and how we can participate in it. Many of us have seen that
announcement and understood it for what it was and thus - even if (like me)
they were opposed to the idea of generics in Go - decided to participate in
it to do their best to ensure the outcome was a good design or a rejection.

So, no offense, but I don't understand how you could in good faith argue
that the community was not involved, the process not respected or the
intention not announced. It was announced on the largest Go conference in
the world, accompanied by a blog post and several threads on golang-nuts
and golang-dev. With regular updates on the progress, again at most of the
large Go conferences, the blog, on this mailing list, several times on the
largest community-run Go podcast and in basically every medium I can think
of.

If you didn't want or didn't have the time to participate in the process,
that's certainly unfortunate. But I believe it is fair to say that the Go
team went above and beyond to make the process as broadly accessible and
known as they can.

And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or
> "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with
> that system right?
>

Not to point out the obvious, but you where the first person in this thread
to ask for a poll. And Ian has been pretty clear about the flaws of that
idea and that it's not how the Go project is run.

Again, it is very hard to interpret your words and actions in good faith
here.

>
>
>
>
> вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 01:03, Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
>> >
>> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
>> >
>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
>> .
>> > None of them have been adopted.
>> >
>> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was
>> withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
>> >
>> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of
>> critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on
>> github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are
>> these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days
>> after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they
>> wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try"
>> proposal.
>>
>> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
>> a formal proposal.  It was not new.
>>
>> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
>> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
>> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
>> supporters than critics.
>>
>> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
>> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
>> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
>> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
>> consensus that it should be accepted.  (Note that the "likely accept"
>> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)
>>
>> None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
>> (https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
>> thumbs down (and 132 "confused").
>>
>> 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/CAEkBMfGbAYQxCoCgL4kofLEdAgV1KvP_62Vo8j9PMJ7Nz9LnnA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
a formal proposal.  It was not new.

There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only
at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's
the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that process?
Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to come back
with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone that
there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that stuff.

> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
supporters than critics.

LOL. You LOCKED that issue (including emojis!). You locked because Russ or
whoever is responsible for the process in the company, was afraid that it
will be like with "try" proposal. So please don't. And are you saying that
"consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or "confused" were collected?
You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with that system right?




вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 01:03, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
> >
> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
> .
> > None of them have been adopted.
> >
> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was
> withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
> >
> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of
> critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on
> github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are
> these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days
> after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they
> wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try"
> proposal.
>
> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
> a formal proposal.  It was not new.
>
> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
> supporters than critics.
>
> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
> consensus that it should be accepted.  (Note that the "likely accept"
> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)
>
> None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
> (https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
> thumbs down (and 132 "confused").
>
> 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/CADKwOTc%2BmjiJOia%3DGt%3D63xAdPmbRSo5RE9XJaNxcp2g38bXoxA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Jan Mercl

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:03 PM Ian Lance Taylor  wrote:

> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
> supporters than critics.

I think it should be noted that:

- No one knows how many of the voters don't actually use Go or are Go
novices. IOW, the statistical properties of the voting population are
not known to be the same or even reasonably similar within a certain
margin to those of the population of Go programmers.
- We can create a hypothesis, that if only people coding in Go for
more than N years, the results may get very different or even
inverted. Due to the above we cannot decide the validity of the
hypothesis. The validity could be, or could have been somehow
estimated by asking a smaller corpus of well known Go developers. Not
meant as a decisive body. Just to get some more reliable data. The
Github votes are, technically speaking, not distinguishable from
noise, ad hoc brigading, etc.
- Regardless of the endless promotion of inclusiveness, the voting
using the service of a single and notoriously controversial provider
of said service ignores, or excludes if you will, people not using
that service for any reason, not only the one I just mentioned.

In the light of the above, it's a bit surprising that the voting
results are even seriously mentioned in this discussion.



Some may have mistakenly inferred I'm against generics. I'm not. But
I'm neither in favor of them. Yet. Ask me some years after they are
released.

-- 
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/CAA40n-VYbKofZK3ezAwbshHGZeBR8dRGpY6ZB1vQ5RH7-J0QPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Robert Engels

Very well said. 

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 7:04 PM, Jeremy French  wrote:
> 
> I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision 
> that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the 
> discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet... it 
> continues.
> 
> For context, I was against the generics proposal, primarily because it would 
> make *my* life more complicated, while not providing *me* that much benefit.  
> I raised the concerns I had, especially in regards to the "if you don't like 
> it, don't use it" arguments. I participated in a couple conversations on this 
> mailing list.  In the end, I was fairly convinced that there were others in 
> the community (and the community as a whole) who would benefit from the 
> change far more than what it would cost me, and resigned myself to the change.
> 
> All of that is just to establish my bona fides.  If I were inclined to be 
> biased on this topic, it would be against the Go team, not in their favor.  
> 
> And yet, I can say unequivocally that any suggestion that the Go team has 
> railroaded this proposal through, or has ignored the concerns of its user 
> base, is pure fiction.  Every single concern or question I've seen raised has 
> been addressed respectfully and at face value - even, I would say - several 
> concerns or complaints on this side of the argument that perhaps reasonably 
> could have been scoffed at or dismissed as just stupid.  They have been 
> respectful and attentive at every turn.  I don't necessarily agree or like 
> the decision they made, but these character assassinations against them or 
> implications that they are subject to corruption from their corporate parent 
> have no supporting evidence that I've seen, including any presented in this 
> thread.
> 
> It seems pretty clear that they are passionate about the health and longevity 
> of the project, and are in the unenviable position of having to make a 
> decision that is guaranteed to make some people angry no matter what they 
> decide.  But in the end, it is their call to make, and they made it the best 
> way they could think of to do so.  You can't ask any more than that.
> 
>> On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM atd...@gmail.com  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity 
>> > votes is not a good measure of things. 
>> > A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in 
>> > computer science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to the 
>> > more technical opinions that is not reflected in the github 
>> > upvote/downvote system. 
>> > At one point, everyone would have upvoted that the earth was flat. 
>> > 
>> > Just a note in passing :) 
>> 
>> Yes. I am not saying that the proposal was adopted because it had 
>> good support. I am arguing against the suggestion that the proposal 
>> should not have been adopted because it had a lot of critics. 
>> 
>> Ian 
>> 
>> 
>> > On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:03:50 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote: 
>> >> > 
>> >> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of 
>> >> > https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md.
>> >> >  
>> >> > None of them have been adopted. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was 
>> >> > withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of 
>> >> > critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal 
>> >> > publication on github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does 
>> >> > it mean? Who are these people who can change the consensus? How was it 
>> >> > measured? A few days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a 
>> >> > word against it if they wanted. So it looks very much that company 
>> >> > management learned from "try" proposal. 
>> >> 
>> >> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became 
>> >> a formal proposal. It was not new. 
>> >> 
>> >> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs 
>> >> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were critics. 
>> >> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more 
>> >> supporters than critics. 
>> >> 
>> >> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after 
>> >> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status: 
>> >> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198. 
>> >> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the 
>> >> consensus that it should be accepted. (Note that the "likely accept" 
>> >> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").) 
>> >> 
>> >> None of this is anything like the "try" pr

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Jeremy French

I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision 
that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the 
discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet... it 
continues.

For context, I was against the generics proposal, primarily because it 
would make *my* life more complicated, while not providing *me* that much 
benefit.  I raised the concerns I had, especially in regards to the "if you 
don't like it, don't use it" arguments. I participated in a couple 
conversations on this mailing list.  In the end, I was fairly convinced 
that there were others in the community (and the community as a whole) who 
would benefit from the change far more than what it would cost me, and 
resigned myself to the change.

All of that is just to establish my bona fides.  If I were inclined to be 
biased on this topic, it would be against the Go team, not in their favor.  

And yet, I can say unequivocally that any suggestion that the Go team has 
railroaded this proposal through, or has ignored the concerns of its user 
base, is pure fiction.  Every single concern or question I've seen raised 
has been addressed respectfully and at face value - even, I would say - 
several concerns or complaints on this side of the argument that perhaps 
reasonably could have been scoffed at or dismissed as just stupid.  They 
have been respectful and attentive at every turn.  I don't necessarily 
agree or like the decision they made, but these character assassinations 
against them or implications that they are subject to corruption from their 
corporate parent have no supporting evidence that I've seen, including any 
presented in this thread.

It seems pretty clear that they are passionate about the health and 
longevity of the project, and are in the unenviable position of having to 
make a decision that is guaranteed to make some people angry no matter what 
they decide.  But in the end, it is their call to make, and they made it 
the best way they could think of to do so.  You can't ask any more than 
that.

On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM atd...@gmail.com  wrote:
> >
> > I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity 
> votes is not a good measure of things.
> > A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in 
> computer science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to the 
> more technical opinions that is not reflected in the github upvote/downvote 
> system.
> > At one point, everyone would have upvoted that the earth was flat.
> >
> > Just a note in passing :)
>
> Yes. I am not saying that the proposal was adopted because it had
> good support. I am arguing against the suggestion that the proposal
> should not have been adopted because it had a lot of critics.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:03:50 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
> >> > 
> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
> .
> >> > None of them have been adopted.
> >> >
> >> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It 
> was withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
> >> >
> >> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot 
> of critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication 
> on github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who 
> are these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few 
> days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they 
> wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try" 
> proposal.
> >>
> >> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
> >> a formal proposal. It was not new.
> >>
> >> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
> >> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were critics.
> >> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
> >> supporters than critics.
> >>
> >> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
> >> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
> >> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
> >> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
> >> consensus that it should be accepted. (Note that the "likely accept"
> >> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)
> >>
> >> None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
> >> (https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
> >> thumbs down (and 132 "confused").
> >>
> >> Ian
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and st

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM atd...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity 
> votes is not a good measure of things.
> A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in computer 
> science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to the more 
> technical opinions that is not reflected in the github upvote/downvote system.
> At one point, everyone would have upvoted that the earth was flat.
>
> Just a note in passing :)

Yes.  I am not saying that the proposal was adopted because it had
good support.  I am arguing against the suggestion that the proposal
should not have been adopted because it had a lot of critics.

Ian


> On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:03:50 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
>> >
>> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
>> > https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md.
>> > None of them have been adopted.
>> >
>> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was 
>> > withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
>> >
>> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of 
>> > critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication 
>> > on github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who 
>> > are these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few 
>> > days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if 
>> > they wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from 
>> > "try" proposal.
>>
>> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
>> a formal proposal. It was not new.
>>
>> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
>> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were critics.
>> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
>> supporters than critics.
>>
>> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
>> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
>> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
>> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
>> consensus that it should be accepted. (Note that the "likely accept"
>> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)
>>
>> None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
>> (https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
>> thumbs down (and 132 "confused").
>>
>> 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/932a39b7-be1b-4c15-b7c8-f99fce730b0en%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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/CAOyqgcUx7T3A4orhbDtY79Ubq%3DJryPM7ZwtdcJhb9q8oyDGS7A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread atd...@gmail.com

I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity 
votes is not a good measure of things.
A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in 
computer science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to the 
more technical opinions that is not reflected in the github upvote/downvote 
system.
At one point, everyone would have upvoted that the earth was flat.

Just a note in passing :)

On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:03:50 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
> > 
> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
> .
> > None of them have been adopted.
> >
> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was 
> withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
> >
> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of 
> critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on 
> github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are 
> these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days 
> after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they 
> wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try" 
> proposal.
>
> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
> a formal proposal. It was not new.
>
> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were critics.
> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
> supporters than critics.
>
> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
> consensus that it should be accepted. (Note that the "likely accept"
> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)
>
> None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
> (https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
> thumbs down (and 132 "confused").
>
> 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/932a39b7-be1b-4c15-b7c8-f99fce730b0en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md.
> None of them have been adopted.
>
> I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was 
> withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
>
> And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of 
> critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on 
> github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are 
> these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days 
> after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they 
> wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try" 
> proposal.

The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
a formal proposal.  It was not new.

The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused").  Yes, there were critics.
But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
supporters than critics.

The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
consensus that it should be accepted.  (Note that the "likely accept"
comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)

None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
(https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
thumbs down (and 132 "confused").

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/CAOyqgcViwqRSCVjxAPcxQcx_%2BYBxKLKmvGiAsHQRrMUjDXBYqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Wojciech S. Czarnecki

Dnia 2021-03-15, o godz. 15:08:22
"Space A."  napisał(a):

> And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of 
> critics 

Apparently not that lot. Second (publicized) design was for me, and likely for 
many other "vocal critics", good enough. My personal (and fresh) acceptance 
stems from a simple fact that with current generics proposal I will be able to 
do what I've been doing before with code generators. So there is a clear gain - 
someone who will maintain my code will not be forced to analyze and maintain 
generators.

> A few days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if 
> they wanted. 

On this list, that is not locked by Russ, I do not see "massive disapproval of 
the community". Some people, including me, voiced concerns re expected clutter 
and re worsened legibility. But these are minor disturbances. We just will 
learn to read and visualize new meanings in the code.


-- 
Wojciech S. Czarnecki
 << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE

-- 
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/20210315225442.2ea013c3%40xmint.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Space A.

Entropy tends to grow. Good things tend to become less good and even bad
over time. This is how the Universe works. Does C++ become a better
language by adding more and more features? What about Java? What makes you
think that people who were behind other languages weren't doing the same as
what "Go team" now trying to do? What's the difference? I really loved Java
at the beginning.


пн, 15 мар. 2021 г. в 03:24, David Skinner :

> I considered generics so important to our workflow that I added it quite
> some time ago, Go is an implementation language, you may implement anything
> you like with it. If you do not like the way it does something, you can use
> it to create a different language, that is what real programmers do. And Go
> makes it very easy to do. When I first started, I was writing machine code
> in octal and years later could read hex dumps the way others could ASM. The
> real problem is that each person who implemented a generics solution did so
> lightly differently so the learning curve is steep and the talent pool is
> shallow. Having well-defined generics for everyone to use will greatly
> benefit the 10% who rolled their own solution and make it easier for
> newbies who must later maintain that code. Heaven helps those who have to
> read my obscure proprietary generics code.
>
> The real problem is to be able to create useful abstractions. Packages
> should be orthogonal APIs, functions should be descriptive, RPCs should not
> have a plethora of microservices for no good reason. Modules and Generics
> are really great and wonderful and save time, but only if used wisely and
> correctly and only as needed. Modules introduced chaos, the dust will
> settle. Generics shall also introduce chaos, but then those who learn to
> use it wisely and effectively shall enjoy and productivity improvement, and
> then that dust will settle.
>
> I have personal reasons to have great trust in the Go team. Go has solved
> a plethora of problems for me already.
>
> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 11:35:23 AM UTC-6 axel.wa...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 6:24 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> There is a huge difference between generics and some regular questions
>>> like `Etag` implementation, isn't it? In time, investments, "community
>>> demand", commitments to upper management, etc
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that Russ has a track record and I
>> trust him.
>>
>>
>>> And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it
>>>
>>
>> Apparently I missed something. I'm unaware of any papers by Russ.
>>
>>
>>> (before accepting proposal in less than a month after it was published).
>>> =)
>>>
>>
>> The proposal has been evolving and discussed for almost three years
>> before that. The reason it got accepted in the space of a months is that it
>> was only published as a proposal once the authors felt confident that the
>> refinements they made in response to the public discussion were sufficient
>> to make it acceptable. In particular, it has changed very little from the
>> version they posted more than a year earlier. After three years of
>> discussion, it would have been surprising if new flaws would have surfaced
>> that made it intractable.
>>
>> It is a testament to how thoroughly it was discussed, not an indication
>> that it wasn't.
>>
>> FWIW, if you only focus on the one-month period between the proposal
>> getting posted and it being accepted, I am beginning to understand why you
>> think there was never a possibility of it being rejected. It would mean you
>> are unaware of the decade of discussion preceding it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 19:39, Axel Wagner :
>>>
 On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Space A.  wrote:

> You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it
> looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you
> mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees.
> They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do.
>

 I did not miss this.


> If, as you say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep
> replying "if we find an approach that gives value blablabla", how do you
> imagine anyone responsible for the process at the end say smth like:
> "Alright guys, after spending so many man-years we have few solutions, but
> we finally realized that we were moving in wrong direction, so now we 
> gonna
> be dropping everything for the sake of better future of Go".
>

 The person responsible for the process (if there is any one person) is
 Russ. I would have expect him to say that, if it was his opinion. He has a
 good track record of acknowledging the arguments on all sides of the
 process and committing to a decision - even it if goes contrary to a
 previous statement of his.

 Here is a recent example I was involved in

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Space A.

 > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
.
None of them have been adopted.

I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was
withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.

And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of
critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on
github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are
these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days
after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they
wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try"
proposal.



пн, 15 мар. 2021 г. в 05:27, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:59 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it
> looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you
> mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees.
> They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do. If, as you
> say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying "if we find an
> approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine anyone responsible
> for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright guys, after spending so
> many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally realized that we were
> moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be dropping everything for the
> sake of better future of Go". Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just
> words and punctuation, it was a one way ticket (and managers knew it), if
> you start this process, start spending money and reporting man hours, you
> know that it will land somewhere.
>
> I understand that argument, but I don't believe that it accurately
> describes the development of the language.  The clearest way to see
> that is by looking at counter-examples.  There have been several
> efforts to change the Go language in the past that have, to date,
> failed to occur, despite people "spending money and reporting man
> hours."  For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
>
> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
> .
> None of them have been adopted.
>
> The people who work on Go, including the managers, are aware of the
> risks of "we've started this project so we must complete it."
> Language development doesn't work that way.  It's OK to realize that
> some ideas just can't be made to work.
>
> This is helped by the fact that most language changes don't require
> much work to start out.  For many years I was the only person working
> on generics in Go, and I certainly wasn't doing it full time.  Then
> for several years it was Robert Griesemer and I, again not full time.
> Today there are several people working on generics in Go, but that is
> only because we got it to the point of a proposal that could be
> accepted.
>
>
> > And I repeat, there wasn't a (public) question or discussion or anything
> regarding should we drop this topic entirely.
>
> There have been many public discussions on this mailing list as to
> whether generics should be dropped entirely.
>
> 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/CADKwOTcsNzf-jT2gC331kmd0E99dKZm77t3djjqDoHsFrnwVLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-15 Thread Space A.

Sorry, of course it's Robert, my mistake.

пн, 15 мар. 2021 г. в 05:30, Ian Lance Taylor :

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Space A.  wrote:
> >
> > And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it (before accepting
> proposal in less than a month after it was published). =)
>
> There may be some confusion here.  Are you referring to the
> Featherweight Go paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710)?  Russ
> wasn't involved with that.  And it was written in early 2020, long
> before the generics proposal was accepted.
>
> Or is there some other paper that I am not aware of?
>
> 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/CADKwOTcwcsmfWvKio-%2BQKZUN8bsK157aADKm0qcukbh5WNVh5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-14 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it (before accepting proposal 
> in less than a month after it was published). =)

There may be some confusion here.  Are you referring to the
Featherweight Go paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710)?  Russ
wasn't involved with that.  And it was written in early 2020, long
before the generics proposal was accepted.

Or is there some other paper that I am not aware of?

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/CAOyqgcWbDVN4Bngwm%3DxLFS-kG_pApx0dyT6oGbAbhCFiVxxJbw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-14 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:59 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it looks 
> like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you mentioned (and 
> most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees. They work for a 
> company and they are paid for the work they do. If, as you say, they spend so 
> much time, literally years, keep replying "if we find an approach that gives 
> value blablabla", how do you imagine anyone responsible for the process at 
> the end say smth like: "Alright guys, after spending so many man-years we 
> have few solutions, but we finally realized that we were moving in wrong 
> direction, so now we gonna be dropping everything for the sake of better 
> future of Go". Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just words and 
> punctuation, it was a one way ticket (and managers knew it), if you start 
> this process, start spending money and reporting man hours, you know that it 
> will land somewhere.

I understand that argument, but I don't believe that it accurately
describes the development of the language.  The clearest way to see
that is by looking at counter-examples.  There have been several
efforts to change the Go language in the past that have, to date,
failed to occur, despite people "spending money and reporting man
hours."  For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md.
None of them have been adopted.

The people who work on Go, including the managers, are aware of the
risks of "we've started this project so we must complete it."
Language development doesn't work that way.  It's OK to realize that
some ideas just can't be made to work.

This is helped by the fact that most language changes don't require
much work to start out.  For many years I was the only person working
on generics in Go, and I certainly wasn't doing it full time.  Then
for several years it was Robert Griesemer and I, again not full time.
Today there are several people working on generics in Go, but that is
only because we got it to the point of a proposal that could be
accepted.

> And I repeat, there wasn't a (public) question or discussion or anything 
> regarding should we drop this topic entirely.

There have been many public discussions on this mailing list as to
whether generics should be dropped entirely.

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/CAOyqgcU_pYU%2BVHkhQDeQ8gTy6CXfB76g1OZdarCJ4YqY6VbGPg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-14 Thread Ian Lance Taylor

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:19 AM Space A.  wrote:
>
> > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been 
> > going on for more than a decade.
> That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was 
> always "we will add them" sooner or later.

Please remember the Go Community Code of Conduct
(https://golang.org/conduct) and be respectful and charitable when
discussing other people.  You could call a statement like this a
"mistake," if you must.  It is not a "lie."  Using a word like that in
this context is not respectful.  Please don't do it.  Thanks.

In this case it is neither a lie nor a mistake.  I've been working on
generics in Go for over ten years, on and off, and I can assure you
that, as Axel said, there was no guarantee that they would be added.

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/CAOyqgcVRjs9rRJ%3Dk%3D42Knwm_axPUwNxccggDO0ScMc8Njb2x%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-14 Thread David Skinner

I considered generics so important to our workflow that I added it quite 
some time ago, Go is an implementation language, you may implement anything 
you like with it. If you do not like the way it does something, you can use 
it to create a different language, that is what real programmers do. And Go 
makes it very easy to do. When I first started, I was writing machine code 
in octal and years later could read hex dumps the way others could ASM. The 
real problem is that each person who implemented a generics solution did so 
lightly differently so the learning curve is steep and the talent pool is 
shallow. Having well-defined generics for everyone to use will greatly 
benefit the 10% who rolled their own solution and make it easier for 
newbies who must later maintain that code. Heaven helps those who have to 
read my obscure proprietary generics code.

The real problem is to be able to create useful abstractions. Packages 
should be orthogonal APIs, functions should be descriptive, RPCs should not 
have a plethora of microservices for no good reason. Modules and Generics 
are really great and wonderful and save time, but only if used wisely and 
correctly and only as needed. Modules introduced chaos, the dust will 
settle. Generics shall also introduce chaos, but then those who learn to 
use it wisely and effectively shall enjoy and productivity improvement, and 
then that dust will settle.

I have personal reasons to have great trust in the Go team. Go has solved a 
plethora of problems for me already.

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 11:35:23 AM UTC-6 axel.wa...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 6:24 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> There is a huge difference between generics and some regular questions 
>> like `Etag` implementation, isn't it? In time, investments, "community 
>> demand", commitments to upper management, etc
>>
>
> Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that Russ has a track record and I 
> trust him.
>  
>
>> And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it
>>
>
> Apparently I missed something. I'm unaware of any papers by Russ.
>  
>
>> (before accepting proposal in less than a month after it was published). 
>> =)
>>
>
> The proposal has been evolving and discussed for almost three years before 
> that. The reason it got accepted in the space of a months is that it was 
> only published as a proposal once the authors felt confident that the 
> refinements they made in response to the public discussion were sufficient 
> to make it acceptable. In particular, it has changed very little from the 
> version they posted more than a year earlier. After three years of 
> discussion, it would have been surprising if new flaws would have surfaced 
> that made it intractable.
>
> It is a testament to how thoroughly it was discussed, not an indication 
> that it wasn't.
>
> FWIW, if you only focus on the one-month period between the proposal 
> getting posted and it being accepted, I am beginning to understand why you 
> think there was never a possibility of it being rejected. It would mean you 
> are unaware of the decade of discussion preceding it.
>
>
>
>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 19:39, Axel Wagner :
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it 
 looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you 
 mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees. 
 They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do.

>>>
>>> I did not miss this.
>>>  
>>>
 If, as you say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying 
 "if we find an approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine 
 anyone responsible for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright 
 guys, 
 after spending so many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally 
 realized that we were moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be 
 dropping everything for the sake of better future of Go".

>>>
>>> The person responsible for the process (if there is any one person) is 
>>> Russ. I would have expect him to say that, if it was his opinion. He has a 
>>> good track record of acknowledging the arguments on all sides of the 
>>> process and committing to a decision - even it if goes contrary to a 
>>> previous statement of his.
>>>
>>> Here is a recent example I was involved in 
>>> . He 
>>> originally said, in no uncertain terms, that `ETag`s will be supported when 
>>> an `embed.FS` is served over `net/http`. When it became clear that we don't 
>>> have a good design to make it happen, he admitted that it's unfortunate to 
>>> break that promise, but it's better than ending with a bad design.
>>>
>>> Even then, what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If 
>>> they spend many years saying "we may add generics, if we find a design that 
>>> works",

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 6:24 PM Space A.  wrote:

> There is a huge difference between generics and some regular questions
> like `Etag` implementation, isn't it? In time, investments, "community
> demand", commitments to upper management, etc
>

Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that Russ has a track record and I
trust him.


> And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it
>

Apparently I missed something. I'm unaware of any papers by Russ.


> (before accepting proposal in less than a month after it was published). =)
>

The proposal has been evolving and discussed for almost three years before
that. The reason it got accepted in the space of a months is that it was
only published as a proposal once the authors felt confident that the
refinements they made in response to the public discussion were sufficient
to make it acceptable. In particular, it has changed very little from the
version they posted more than a year earlier. After three years of
discussion, it would have been surprising if new flaws would have surfaced
that made it intractable.

It is a testament to how thoroughly it was discussed, not an indication
that it wasn't.

FWIW, if you only focus on the one-month period between the proposal
getting posted and it being accepted, I am beginning to understand why you
think there was never a possibility of it being rejected. It would mean you
are unaware of the decade of discussion preceding it.



> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 19:39, Axel Wagner :
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it
>>> looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you
>>> mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees.
>>> They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do.
>>>
>>
>> I did not miss this.
>>
>>
>>> If, as you say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying
>>> "if we find an approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine
>>> anyone responsible for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright guys,
>>> after spending so many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally
>>> realized that we were moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be
>>> dropping everything for the sake of better future of Go".
>>>
>>
>> The person responsible for the process (if there is any one person) is
>> Russ. I would have expect him to say that, if it was his opinion. He has a
>> good track record of acknowledging the arguments on all sides of the
>> process and committing to a decision - even it if goes contrary to a
>> previous statement of his.
>>
>> Here is a recent example I was involved in
>> . He
>> originally said, in no uncertain terms, that `ETag`s will be supported when
>> an `embed.FS` is served over `net/http`. When it became clear that we don't
>> have a good design to make it happen, he admitted that it's unfortunate to
>> break that promise, but it's better than ending with a bad design.
>>
>> Even then, what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they
>> spend many years saying "we may add generics, if we find a design that
>> works", they seem to be perfectly set up to say "we didn't find one" to
>> their hypothetical employer (to be clear: Their employer doesn't care).
>> Like, if anything, what they said made it *more* plausible to just drop
>> generics altogether if they don't like the design.
>>
>> And, personally, I was in the room when the original contracts design was
>> first shown externally (at the GopherCon 2018 contributor summit) and I
>> talked to Ian and Robert (and others) about it. As far as I remember, they
>> were pretty open about their intent to let this be the last attempt, which
>> would either lead to a) generics landing in Go or b) generics actually
>> being rejected (in the sense of "changing the FAQ entry to say 'there will
>> never be generics in Go, because we've given up on finding a design that
>> works'").
>> That is, I'm not just working from the actual literal words of everyone
>> involved and every public statement any of them has ever made (which I
>> heard) but also from actually talking to them, in person, asking them
>> clarifying questions and interpreting their facial and body language.
>>
>> Of course, you don't have to believe me about any of this. But I can
>> categorically say that, as far as I can tell, your allegations that the
>> decision to add generics was pre-made is baseless.
>>
>>
>>> Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just words and punctuation
>>>
>>
>> As a rule, I try to avoid speculating about intent. It is hard enough to
>> interpret what people are actually directly saying, without speculating
>> about their internal monologue.
>> For example, when the Go team said "we may add generics, if we find a
>> design that works", you seemingly heard "we will add generics in the
>> future" and many others seem

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-13 Thread Martin Schnabel

hi jan,

i mostly share your perspective, but i may be a bit more optimistic.

the language as-is can be used to write horrible code already (i know
because i did and still sometimes do). i am also sure that many will
"abstract prematurely" before they see the light and come to reason (i
will probably do the same, because it is part of the learning process).

but i also have trust in the go developers and community and they earned
it. i am optimistically certain that the go standard library will not
morph into an java-esque object-hell (as some others seem to fear), not
only because many of use would nag and complain as we do, but because
the developers set out with - or flocked to - this same ideal of less is
more.

on the other hand are valid use-cases currently covered by code
duplication, code generation, and empty interfaces. that would often
gain from a clear type signature in addition to the existing docs or
well vetted and battle tested data structure packages. how many project
have their own tree implementations with subtle bugs, that nobody had
time to properly review? how many ways are there to generate code? how
many copy and pasted blocks of code have missed a change in the last
line? i know i have read papers that quantify these types of errors (i
think it was from someone involved in the findbugs project in java
land). although i don't remember details, i know it was not pretty and
mirrored my own experience reading and writing code.

my argument is, that if you do not use generics in your own code, but
libraries used by you do, then you would still need to read the docs and
learn the api - not a big difference from that perspective.

in the best case we add some type-safety, avoid obscure code generation
scripts, error prone duplication and simplify some apis, all while
making some code more comfortable - and other code even possible to write.

in the worst case we have some inappropriately popular libraries and
frameworks that use generics, that we can decide to ignore as a company,
group or individual. i would argue that we already have them here and
there and they don't particularly rely on generics to exist.

i think that go is what it is, not because of the language spec, but
because of the people that use it as to write code. nobody is perfect,
but we have many brilliant people on this list with a whole lot of
experience. i learned to trust the decisions of the go developer team
and they earned my respect and gratitude. the reason anyone would freely
choose go to write code is tied to the ideas, works and decisions of
these some people. why would i stop having trust in them now?

On 13.03.21 14:09, Jan Mercl wrote:

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Martin Schnabel wrote:

as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the
negative mails to this list.

That nonchalantly ignores that code is way more often read than written.

"Clever" use of preprocessing macros can make C code unreadable to
anyone other than its author unless learning the mindset behind the
macros. Symbols in the binary can have very little connection with the
symbols in the source code. Nice tar pit for transpiling/debugging
etc. I believe that's why Go does not have C macros or anything like
that.

The problem with generics is not the same, but it shares some of the
problems depicted above. The no more existing 1:1 symbol mapping is
the one I regret most by a wide margin. Goodbye easy and simple
grepping.

Good use of generics _will_ be good for Go, don't get me wrong about
this. But, when looking at random code in the wild, let me ask: What's
the ratio of poor vs good code one encounters at random?

And don't get me wrong the second time. I'm writing a lot of poor
code. Once I start using generics, my future self will be probably the
first one to curse me for that.

--
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/5880b473-4198-8c4a-fcb0-faa4a3c07f3d%40mb0.org.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> Here is a recent example I was involved in
. He
originally said, in no uncertain terms, that `ETag`s will be supported when
an `embed.FS` is served over `net/http`.

There is a huge difference between generics and some regular questions like
`Etag` implementation, isn't it? In time, investments, "community demand",
commitments to upper management, etc
And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it (before accepting
proposal in less than a month after it was published). =)

сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 19:39, Axel Wagner :

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it
>> looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you
>> mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees.
>> They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do.
>>
>
> I did not miss this.
>
>
>> If, as you say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying
>> "if we find an approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine
>> anyone responsible for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright guys,
>> after spending so many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally
>> realized that we were moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be
>> dropping everything for the sake of better future of Go".
>>
>
> The person responsible for the process (if there is any one person) is
> Russ. I would have expect him to say that, if it was his opinion. He has a
> good track record of acknowledging the arguments on all sides of the
> process and committing to a decision - even it if goes contrary to a
> previous statement of his.
>
> Here is a recent example I was involved in
> . He
> originally said, in no uncertain terms, that `ETag`s will be supported when
> an `embed.FS` is served over `net/http`. When it became clear that we don't
> have a good design to make it happen, he admitted that it's unfortunate to
> break that promise, but it's better than ending with a bad design.
>
> Even then, what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they
> spend many years saying "we may add generics, if we find a design that
> works", they seem to be perfectly set up to say "we didn't find one" to
> their hypothetical employer (to be clear: Their employer doesn't care).
> Like, if anything, what they said made it *more* plausible to just drop
> generics altogether if they don't like the design.
>
> And, personally, I was in the room when the original contracts design was
> first shown externally (at the GopherCon 2018 contributor summit) and I
> talked to Ian and Robert (and others) about it. As far as I remember, they
> were pretty open about their intent to let this be the last attempt, which
> would either lead to a) generics landing in Go or b) generics actually
> being rejected (in the sense of "changing the FAQ entry to say 'there will
> never be generics in Go, because we've given up on finding a design that
> works'").
> That is, I'm not just working from the actual literal words of everyone
> involved and every public statement any of them has ever made (which I
> heard) but also from actually talking to them, in person, asking them
> clarifying questions and interpreting their facial and body language.
>
> Of course, you don't have to believe me about any of this. But I can
> categorically say that, as far as I can tell, your allegations that the
> decision to add generics was pre-made is baseless.
>
>
>> Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just words and punctuation
>>
>
> As a rule, I try to avoid speculating about intent. It is hard enough to
> interpret what people are actually directly saying, without speculating
> about their internal monologue.
> For example, when the Go team said "we may add generics, if we find a
> design that works", you seemingly heard "we will add generics in the
> future" and many others seemingly heard "we will never add generics". If we
> need to allow for different people hearing logically opposite messages from
> the same words, running a public project seems intractable.
>
> So, I really don't think we should take stock in anything but the actual
> words people said.
>
>
>
>> And I repeat, there wasn't a (public) question or discussion or anything
>> regarding should we drop this topic entirely.
>>
>
> That is not correct. The possibility of rejecting the proposal (and thus
> likely rejecting generics altogether) was always part of the conversation.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 18:32, Axel Wagner :
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has
 been going on for more than a decade.
 That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It
 was always "we will add them" sooner or later.

>>>
>>> It is some

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Space A.  wrote:

> You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it
> looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you
> mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees.
> They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do.
>

I did not miss this.

> If, as you say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying
> "if we find an approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine
> anyone responsible for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright guys,
> after spending so many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally
> realized that we were moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be
> dropping everything for the sake of better future of Go".
>

The person responsible for the process (if there is any one person) is
Russ. I would have expect him to say that, if it was his opinion. He has a
good track record of acknowledging the arguments on all sides of the
process and committing to a decision - even it if goes contrary to a
previous statement of his.

Here is a recent example I was involved in
. He
originally said, in no uncertain terms, that `ETag`s will be supported when
an `embed.FS` is served over `net/http`. When it became clear that we don't
have a good design to make it happen, he admitted that it's unfortunate to
break that promise, but it's better than ending with a bad design.

Even then, what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they
spend many years saying "we may add generics, if we find a design that
works", they seem to be perfectly set up to say "we didn't find one" to
their hypothetical employer (to be clear: Their employer doesn't care).
Like, if anything, what they said made it *more* plausible to just drop
generics altogether if they don't like the design.

And, personally, I was in the room when the original contracts design was
first shown externally (at the GopherCon 2018 contributor summit) and I
talked to Ian and Robert (and others) about it. As far as I remember, they
were pretty open about their intent to let this be the last attempt, which
would either lead to a) generics landing in Go or b) generics actually
being rejected (in the sense of "changing the FAQ entry to say 'there will
never be generics in Go, because we've given up on finding a design that
works'").
That is, I'm not just working from the actual literal words of everyone
involved and every public statement any of them has ever made (which I
heard) but also from actually talking to them, in person, asking them
clarifying questions and interpreting their facial and body language.

Of course, you don't have to believe me about any of this. But I can
categorically say that, as far as I can tell, your allegations that the
decision to add generics was pre-made is baseless.

> Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just words and punctuation
>

As a rule, I try to avoid speculating about intent. It is hard enough to
interpret what people are actually directly saying, without speculating
about their internal monologue.
For example, when the Go team said "we may add generics, if we find a
design that works", you seemingly heard "we will add generics in the
future" and many others seemingly heard "we will never add generics". If we
need to allow for different people hearing logically opposite messages from
the same words, running a public project seems intractable.

So, I really don't think we should take stock in anything but the actual
words people said.

> And I repeat, there wasn't a (public) question or discussion or anything
> regarding should we drop this topic entirely.
>

That is not correct. The possibility of rejecting the proposal (and thus
likely rejecting generics altogether) was always part of the conversation.

>
>
>
> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 18:32, Axel Wagner :
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been
>>> going on for more than a decade.
>>> That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was
>>> always "we will add them" sooner or later.
>>>
>>
>> It is somewhat amusing, though ultimately frustrating, that for ten years
>> people where misquoting the Go team to say they categorically reject
>> generics and now that a decision has been made to add them, they are being
>> misquoted as saying they will *definitely* add them, sooner or later.
>>
>> Both are not true. The stance has always been (demonstrably
>> 
>>  since
>> before the open sourcing of Go) that generics *may* come at some point, *if
>> they can figure out a way that gives value commensurate with their
>> complexity.* This messaging has been consistent.
>>
>> Even for this specific push (which started with the contrac

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-13 Thread 'Carla Pfaff' via golang-nuts


On Saturday, 13 March 2021 at 15:31:05 UTC+1 Space A. wrote:

> There wasn't even a poll or anything. So the question of whether this 
> topic should be dropped completely (a lot of reasons why) has not been 
> thought out.
>

It was already explained that Go development is not driven by polls or 
surveys: 
https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/uGjSw4VGBgAJ
You were in the same thread, you should already know this.

-- 
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/609679d4-5155-43e8-8e2d-4abea18f0874n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
 wrote:
>
> I don't think it is useful to quibble over the definition of "ignore". When I 
> said it is demonstrably false that arguments have been ignored, I was 
> assuming what I perceive to be the common definition: "refuse to take notice 
> of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. fail to consider (something 
> significant)". Under this definition, that statement implies that arguments 
> have not been given consideration, which would be false. They have been 
> considered, they just where not actually followed.
>
> If the statement was made using a different definition, that is fine - at 
> least we've gotten that clarification, then. I just did not want there to be 
> any misunderstandings about what actually happened. I didn't want to start a 
> debate about the English language.

I believe we are using the very same definition. What I'm failing at
is to explain the context.

I may invest in bitcoins, let's say.

One thing/opinion is that it may bring profit. The other is that I may
lose my money. When I decide to buy bitcoins as well if I decide to do
the opposite, I'm from that moment ignoring one of those opinions
because the decision has been made. I cannot keep considering both the
conflicting opinions. I _must_ from now on ignore one of them. Failing
to do that means no decision can be made.

Only the future can tell if that was a wise choice or not. And that's
exactly the same about Go and generics.

-- 
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/CAA40n-VBO%2BZc7HMs13KmN%2BcoUipaz%3DKSWv81VUbOKN7u8YOBeA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it
looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you
mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees.
They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do. If, as you
say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying "if we find an
approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine anyone responsible
for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright guys, after spending so
many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally realized that we were
moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be dropping everything for the
sake of better future of Go". Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just
words and punctuation, it was a one way ticket (and managers knew it), if
you start this process, start spending money and reporting man hours, you
know that it will land somewhere.

And I repeat, there wasn't a (public) question or discussion or anything
regarding should we drop this topic entirely.

сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 18:32, Axel Wagner :

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been
>> going on for more than a decade.
>> That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was
>> always "we will add them" sooner or later.
>>
>
> It is somewhat amusing, though ultimately frustrating, that for ten years
> people where misquoting the Go team to say they categorically reject
> generics and now that a decision has been made to add them, they are being
> misquoted as saying they will *definitely* add them, sooner or later.
>
> Both are not true. The stance has always been (demonstrably
> 
>  since
> before the open sourcing of Go) that generics *may* come at some point, *if
> they can figure out a way that gives value commensurate with their
> complexity.* This messaging has been consistent.
>
> Even for this specific push (which started with the contracts design)
> whenever Ian, Russ, Robert or anyone else on the Go team has been asked if
> generics *will* be added, the response has been a consistent "if we find
> an approach that gives value commensurate with their complexity. We are
> hopeful that this one does, but we will see". The first time anyone has
> actually said generics *will* be added was when the proposal was marked
> as accepted
> . And I
> wouldn't condone the use of "always" for "since about a month ago" any more
> than I would condone "they ignored arguments" to mean "they disagreed with
> arguments".
>
> If you insist on calling me a liar again, I would appreciate it if you
> could provide a source showing that anything of what I wrote here is
> untrue. Though, to be frank, I don't really think there is much point to
> this discussion either way - you have already demonstrated in the past that
> you are at best difficult to have a productive conversation with.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 17:31, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
>> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be
>>> added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from
>>> all sides have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached.
>>>
>>> You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no
>>> arguments" or that "arguments have been ignored" is simply and demonstrably
>>> false. I understand that it can be difficult to accept that other qualified
>>> people can come to different conclusions from you, based on the same
>>> available data. But it's simply going to happen. So please be mindful of
>>> how you communicate. And ideally, don't try to re-open this discussion with
>>> the same arguments that have already been heard. It took enough time and
>>> energy from everyone to reach a decision once.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>>
 HI Martin,

 as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also
 reading it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time
 you're not just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including
 libraries and tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does
 not work, every Go programmer will be forced to use generics, to read and
 at the end, to write that code.

 Second question you may ask - yes it will be overused, in fact in the
 very first year everything will be flooded with bad code. Because it's a
 new toy and biggest change to the language in years, because it's a "smart"
 way of doing things (we are mature programmers, aren't we?), because "type
 safety" and "performance" and so on so forth.

 сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 15:45, Martin Sch

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I don't think it is useful to quibble over the definition of "ignore". When
I said it is demonstrably false that arguments have been ignored, I was
assuming what I perceive to be the common definition: "refuse to take
notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. fail to consider
(something significant)". Under this definition, that statement implies
that arguments have not been given consideration, which would be false.
They have been *considered*, they just where not actually followed.

If the statement was made using a different definition, that is fine - at
least we've gotten that clarification, then. I just did not want there to
be any misunderstandings about what actually happened. I didn't want to
start a debate about the English language.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:35 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:18 PM Bruno Albuquerque  wrote:
>
> > FWIIW, I also agree that "ignore" makes no sense here. You might listen
> and think about several opinions/options and conclude that one of them is
> the best one. This does not mean you ignored all the others.
>
> You do not ignore the differing opinions before you make the decision.
> The decision makes them ignored because you cannot not ignore them. If
> you would still consider them you cannot make the decision.
>
> The decision outcome of whether to adopt generics or not adopt
> generics is _binary_, hence why I knowingly use "ignore" and it means
> exactly what it says. Kinda Sophie's choice, if you will.
>
> The process of reaching the decision, OTOH, does not ignore
> arguments/opinions. That I've never said and I don't know why it would
> be inferred by anyone.
>
> Last attempt to clarify: You cannot please all the parties at the same
> time with this kind of decision, one must realize/admit that's a
> non-goal. However, from the POV of someone from the "losing" side,
> his/her argument can be legitimely, but subjectively perceived as
> ignored - even when it was not actually ignored during the process.
>

-- 
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/CAEkBMfG8NMR0WCq_o%3D%2BENKqa3%3DEODzfvF0O7Nv-ZHDDGiU4%2BZA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:18 PM Bruno Albuquerque  wrote:

> FWIIW, I also agree that "ignore" makes no sense here. You might listen and 
> think about several opinions/options and conclude that one of them is the 
> best one. This does not mean you ignored all the others.

You do not ignore the differing opinions before you make the decision.
The decision makes them ignored because you cannot not ignore them. If
you would still consider them you cannot make the decision.

The decision outcome of whether to adopt generics or not adopt
generics is _binary_, hence why I knowingly use "ignore" and it means
exactly what it says. Kinda Sophie's choice, if you will.

The process of reaching the decision, OTOH, does not ignore
arguments/opinions. That I've never said and I don't know why it would
be inferred by anyone.

Last attempt to clarify: You cannot please all the parties at the same
time with this kind of decision, one must realize/admit that's a
non-goal. However, from the POV of someone from the "losing" side,
his/her argument can be legitimely, but subjectively perceived as
ignored - even when it was not actually ignored during the process.

-- 
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/CAA40n-U72Uk9xU3hppRsyZiGT_YUYOMRjKkeXsczNbCY%2B2H-oQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:19 PM Space A.  wrote:

> > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been
> going on for more than a decade.
> That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was
> always "we will add them" sooner or later.
>

It is somewhat amusing, though ultimately frustrating, that for ten years
people where misquoting the Go team to say they categorically reject
generics and now that a decision has been made to add them, they are being
misquoted as saying they will *definitely* add them, sooner or later.

Both are not true. The stance has always been (demonstrably

since
before the open sourcing of Go) that generics *may* come at some point, *if
they can figure out a way that gives value commensurate with their
complexity.* This messaging has been consistent.

Even for this specific push (which started with the contracts design)
whenever Ian, Russ, Robert or anyone else on the Go team has been asked if
generics *will* be added, the response has been a consistent "if we find an
approach that gives value commensurate with their complexity. We are
hopeful that this one does, but we will see". The first time anyone has
actually said generics *will* be added was when the proposal was marked as
accepted .
And I wouldn't condone the use of "always" for "since about a month ago"
any more than I would condone "they ignored arguments" to mean "they
disagreed with arguments".

If you insist on calling me a liar again, I would appreciate it if you
could provide a source showing that anything of what I wrote here is
untrue. Though, to be frank, I don't really think there is much point to
this discussion either way - you have already demonstrated in the past that
you are at best difficult to have a productive conversation with.

>
>
>
> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 17:31, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com>:
>
>> I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be
>> added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from
>> all sides have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached.
>>
>> You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no
>> arguments" or that "arguments have been ignored" is simply and demonstrably
>> false. I understand that it can be difficult to accept that other qualified
>> people can come to different conclusions from you, based on the same
>> available data. But it's simply going to happen. So please be mindful of
>> how you communicate. And ideally, don't try to re-open this discussion with
>> the same arguments that have already been heard. It took enough time and
>> energy from everyone to reach a decision once.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>>
>>> HI Martin,
>>>
>>> as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also reading
>>> it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time you're not
>>> just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including libraries and
>>> tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does not work,
>>> every Go programmer will be forced to use generics, to read and at the end,
>>> to write that code.
>>>
>>> Second question you may ask - yes it will be overused, in fact in the
>>> very first year everything will be flooded with bad code. Because it's a
>>> new toy and biggest change to the language in years, because it's a "smart"
>>> way of doing things (we are mature programmers, aren't we?), because "type
>>> safety" and "performance" and so on so forth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 15:45, Martin Schnabel :
>>>
 (sorry space a, i didn't reply to list)

 hi alex and space a.

 as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
 generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand
 the
 negative mails to this list.

 do you also want others not to use them? how would that help you? could
 you please explain to me your personal gain if generics are not added
 to
 go and not available to me and other users? many users have valid use
 cases for generics and custom code generation to deal with them now.

 i personally never had a reason to use imaginary numbers in go, they
 are
 however part of the language as literals and accompanied by special
 built-ins. should i care, do you?

 please explain

 On 13.03.21 12:34, Space A. wrote:
 > 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 a

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been
going on for more than a decade.
That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was
always "we will add them" sooner or later.




сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 17:31, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com>:

> I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be
> added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from
> all sides have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached.
>
> You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no
> arguments" or that "arguments have been ignored" is simply and demonstrably
> false. I understand that it can be difficult to accept that other qualified
> people can come to different conclusions from you, based on the same
> available data. But it's simply going to happen. So please be mindful of
> how you communicate. And ideally, don't try to re-open this discussion with
> the same arguments that have already been heard. It took enough time and
> energy from everyone to reach a decision once.
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> HI Martin,
>>
>> as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also reading
>> it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time you're not
>> just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including libraries and
>> tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does not work,
>> every Go programmer will be forced to use generics, to read and at the end,
>> to write that code.
>>
>> Second question you may ask - yes it will be overused, in fact in the
>> very first year everything will be flooded with bad code. Because it's a
>> new toy and biggest change to the language in years, because it's a "smart"
>> way of doing things (we are mature programmers, aren't we?), because "type
>> safety" and "performance" and so on so forth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 15:45, Martin Schnabel :
>>
>>> (sorry space a, i didn't reply to list)
>>>
>>> hi alex and space a.
>>>
>>> as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
>>> generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the
>>> negative mails to this list.
>>>
>>> do you also want others not to use them? how would that help you? could
>>> you please explain to me your personal gain if generics are not added to
>>> go and not available to me and other users? many users have valid use
>>> cases for generics and custom code generation to deal with them now.
>>>
>>> i personally never had a reason to use imaginary numbers in go, they are
>>> however part of the language as literals and accompanied by special
>>> built-ins. should i care, do you?
>>>
>>> please explain
>>>
>>> On 13.03.21 12:34, Space A. wrote:
>>> > 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 >> >
>>> > 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-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-dictionaries.md
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-13 Thread Bruno Albuquerque

FWIIW, I also agree that "ignore" makes no sense here. You might listen and
think about several opinions/options and conclude that one of them is the
best one. This does not mean you ignored all the others.


On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:06 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:00 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Axel Wagner
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means
>> "be unaware of or pretend they don't exist".
>> > You seem to use it as "disagree about their validity or the weight they
>> are given in the decision". That seems questionable to me.
>>
>> No, that's not what I think. Opinions are not objectively measurable
>> and are thus in principle equal. Qualified people (not sure how to
>> define them), beginners, whoever. The decision maker assigned
>> subjective weights to the differing opinions and, again, that's just
>> fine and the only way to get the decision.
>>
>
> I agree. I still believe that using "ignore" is a misuse of how the word
> is commonly understood. But as long as it's clear that what you describe
> here is demonstrably what has happened, I guess it does not matter what
> word you prefer to use for that.
>
>
>>
>> In no way that means my opinions are better or worse than yours or
>> anyone else's. They just differ and there's nothing wrong about that
>> either.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/CAEkBMfEfpAvm6zPjGKqVGVfDSPPbVwpRdz3sn4njrBgZAG2sew%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAEd86TyVXu4JQRGys8c8eH2G6HHJNSFEB%3DTobbk9D103G_NMqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:00 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Axel Wagner
>  wrote:
>
> > We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means "be
> unaware of or pretend they don't exist".
> > You seem to use it as "disagree about their validity or the weight they
> are given in the decision". That seems questionable to me.
>
> No, that's not what I think. Opinions are not objectively measurable
> and are thus in principle equal. Qualified people (not sure how to
> define them), beginners, whoever. The decision maker assigned
> subjective weights to the differing opinions and, again, that's just
> fine and the only way to get the decision.
>

I agree. I still believe that using "ignore" is a misuse of how the word is
commonly understood. But as long as it's clear that what you describe here
is demonstrably what has happened, I guess it does not matter what word you
prefer to use for that.


>
> In no way that means my opinions are better or worse than yours or
> anyone else's. They just differ and there's nothing wrong about that
> either.
>

-- 
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/CAEkBMfEfpAvm6zPjGKqVGVfDSPPbVwpRdz3sn4njrBgZAG2sew%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Axel Wagner
 wrote:

> We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means "be 
> unaware of or pretend they don't exist".
> You seem to use it as "disagree about their validity or the weight they are 
> given in the decision". That seems questionable to me.

No, that's not what I think. Opinions are not objectively measurable
and are thus in principle equal. Qualified people (not sure how to
define them), beginners, whoever. The decision maker assigned
subjective weights to the differing opinions and, again, that's just
fine and the only way to get the decision.

In no way that means my opinions are better or worse than yours or
anyone else's. They just differ and there's nothing wrong about that
either.

-- 
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/CAA40n-Up%2Bo6R%3Dc_wjJhMyoN90BeNo2_Vbny2yGwPCeL44XVtJg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:42 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not false at all. If you have more than one party, differing in
> conflicting opinions on a subject and you make a final decision, you
> _must_ ignore at least arguments of one of the parties.


We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means "be
unaware of or pretend they don't exist".
You seem to use it as "disagree about their validity or the weight they are
given in the decision". That seems questionable to me.

That's nothing
> wrong. It's the only way to make the decision happen.
>
> Would the decision have been to not introduce generics in Go, the
> arguments of people advocating generics would have to be - in the end
> - ignored.
>
> > So please be mindful of how you communicate.
>
> I would like to ask for the same - but not only from S.A.
>

-- 
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/CAEkBMfH4PxwK4XmWEPAGMD7VPF64QKmpjF4UimaEbJ2B1idyVA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-13 Thread alex-coder

Hello again.

Looks like I have the several problems. :-)
First one is my English, it seems my written explanations not properly 
describe my wishes.
Next one is that I have missed the already closed discussion and include my 
opinion in context
where it would be unnecessary.

So, of course, of course the initial point to include generic into GO was 
the customer wishes.
And moreover possible I should change my opinion after reading all the 
references provided. :-)

Thank all of you.

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 5:31:50 PM UTC+3 axel.wa...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

> I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be 
> added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from 
> all sides have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached.
>
> You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no 
> arguments" or that "arguments have been ignored" is simply and demonstrably 
> false. I understand that it can be difficult to accept that other qualified 
> people can come to different conclusions from you, based on the same 
> available data. But it's simply going to happen. So please be mindful of 
> how you communicate. And ideally, don't try to re-open this discussion with 
> the same arguments that have already been heard. It took enough time and 
> energy from everyone to reach a decision once.
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:19 PM Space A.  wrote:
>
>> HI Martin,
>>
>> as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also reading 
>> it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time you're not 
>> just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including libraries and 
>> tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does not work, 
>> every Go programmer will be forced to use generics, to read and at the end, 
>> to write that code. 
>>
>> Second question you may ask - yes it will be overused, in fact in the 
>> very first year everything will be flooded with bad code. Because it's a 
>> new toy and biggest change to the language in years, because it's a "smart" 
>> way of doing things (we are mature programmers, aren't we?), because "type 
>> safety" and "performance" and so on so forth. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 15:45, Martin Schnabel :
>>
>>> (sorry space a, i didn't reply to list)
>>>
>>> hi alex and space a.
>>>
>>> as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with 
>>> generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the 
>>> negative mails to this list.
>>>
>>> do you also want others not to use them? how would that help you? could 
>>> you please explain to me your personal gain if generics are not added to 
>>> go and not available to me and other users? many users have valid use 
>>> cases for generics and custom code generation to deal with them now.
>>>
>>> i personally never had a reason to use imaginary numbers in go, they are 
>>> however part of the language as literals and accompanied by special 
>>> built-ins. should i care, do you?
>>>
>>> please explain
>>>
>>> On 13.03.21 12:34, Space A. wrote:
>>> > 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 >> >
>>> > 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-stenciling.md
>

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:31 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
 wrote:

> I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be added 
> to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from all sides 
> have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached.
>
> You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no 
> arguments" or that "arguments have been ignored" is simply and demonstrably 
> false.

Not false at all. If you have more than one party, differing in
conflicting opinions on a subject and you make a final decision, you
_must_ ignore at least arguments of one of the parties. That's nothing
wrong. It's the only way to make the decision happen.

Would the decision have been to not introduce generics in Go, the
arguments of people advocating generics would have to be - in the end
- ignored.

> So please be mindful of how you communicate.

I would like to ask for the same - but not only from S.A.

-- 
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/CAA40n-U22r%3DA%2BHr6Df2LiC%2Biv0cVGAN_%3DwsgHuDX1%2BgUMjCxOw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be
added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from
all sides have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached.

You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no
arguments" or that "arguments have been ignored" is simply and demonstrably
false. I understand that it can be difficult to accept that other qualified
people can come to different conclusions from you, based on the same
available data. But it's simply going to happen. So please be mindful of
how you communicate. And ideally, don't try to re-open this discussion with
the same arguments that have already been heard. It took enough time and
energy from everyone to reach a decision once.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:19 PM Space A.  wrote:

> HI Martin,
>
> as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also reading
> it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time you're not
> just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including libraries and
> tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does not work,
> every Go programmer will be forced to use generics, to read and at the end,
> to write that code.
>
> Second question you may ask - yes it will be overused, in fact in the very
> first year everything will be flooded with bad code. Because it's a new toy
> and biggest change to the language in years, because it's a "smart" way of
> doing things (we are mature programmers, aren't we?), because "type safety"
> and "performance" and so on so forth.
>
>
>
>
>
> сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 15:45, Martin Schnabel :
>
>> (sorry space a, i didn't reply to list)
>>
>> hi alex and space a.
>>
>> as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
>> generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the
>> negative mails to this list.
>>
>> do you also want others not to use them? how would that help you? could
>> you please explain to me your personal gain if generics are not added to
>> go and not available to me and other users? many users have valid use
>> cases for generics and custom code generation to deal with them now.
>>
>> i personally never had a reason to use imaginary numbers in go, they are
>> however part of the language as literals and accompanied by special
>> built-ins. should i care, do you?
>>
>> please explain
>>
>> On 13.03.21 12:34, Space A. wrote:
>> > 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 
>> > 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-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-dictionaries.md
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/generics-implementation-gcshape.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.c

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> There have been many discussions and debates about generics (first as to
whether they should be added at all
That's simply not true, there have never been raised a discussion of
whether they should be added or not. There wasn't even a poll or anything.
So the question of whether this topic should be dropped completely (a lot
of reasons why) has not been thought out.

> If you are not okay with generics, so be it, but one - don't manipulate
facts
Where did I manipulate?

> stop being that dogmatic and negative here, please, for the sake of all
of us
Why do you tell me what to do, what to say, or what to feel?


сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 16:17, Levieux Michel :

> 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.  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  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
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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/CADKwOTf_DAOcMPp5smAtLZbAwEt5P7TpfhEpBeEWuYgBnRHy1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

HI Martin,

as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also reading
it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time you're not
just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including libraries and
tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does not work,
every Go programmer will be forced to use generics, to read and at the end,
to write that code.

Second question you may ask - yes it will be overused, in fact in the very
first year everything will be flooded with bad code. Because it's a new toy
and biggest change to the language in years, because it's a "smart" way of
doing things (we are mature programmers, aren't we?), because "type safety"
and "performance" and so on so forth.





сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 15:45, Martin Schnabel :

> (sorry space a, i didn't reply to list)
>
> hi alex and space a.
>
> as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
> generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the
> negative mails to this list.
>
> do you also want others not to use them? how would that help you? could
> you please explain to me your personal gain if generics are not added to
> go and not available to me and other users? many users have valid use
> cases for generics and custom code generation to deal with them now.
>
> i personally never had a reason to use imaginary numbers in go, they are
> however part of the language as literals and accompanied by special
> built-ins. should i care, do you?
>
> please explain
>
> On 13.03.21 12:34, Space A. wrote:
> > 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 
> > 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-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-dictionaries.md
> >
> >
> >
> https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/generics-implementation-gcshape.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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/c67e637e-6eea-de85-1d43-e2d775424044%40mb0.org
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" g

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-13 Thread Levieux Michel

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.  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  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
> 
> .
>

-- 
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.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Martin Schnabel  wrote:

> as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
> generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the
> negative mails to this list.

That nonchalantly ignores that code is way more often read than written.

"Clever" use of preprocessing macros can make C code unreadable to
anyone other than its author unless learning the mindset behind the
macros. Symbols in the binary can have very little connection with the
symbols in the source code. Nice tar pit for transpiling/debugging
etc. I believe that's why Go does not have C macros or anything like
that.

The problem with generics is not the same, but it shares some of the
problems depicted above. The no more existing 1:1 symbol mapping is
the one I regret most by a wide margin. Goodbye easy and simple
grepping.

Good use of generics _will_ be good for Go, don't get me wrong about
this. But, when looking at random code in the wild, let me ask: What's
the ratio of poor vs good code one encounters at random?

And don't get me wrong the second time. I'm writing a lot of poor
code. Once I start using generics, my future self will be probably the
first one to curse me for that.

-- 
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/CAA40n-V6RgDNd4KCf04K0a_7DM8aLoOd7CcSAE%2B7_XULS8Go8A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

2021-03-13 Thread Martin Schnabel

(sorry space a, i didn't reply to list)

hi alex and space a.

as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with
generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the
negative mails to this list.

do you also want others not to use them? how would that help you? could
you please explain to me your personal gain if generics are not added to
go and not available to me and other users? many users have valid use
cases for generics and custom code generation to deal with them now.

i personally never had a reason to use imaginary numbers in go, they are
however part of the language as literals and accompanied by special
built-ins. should i care, do you?

please explain

On 13.03.21 12:34, Space A. wrote:
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
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
.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2