I like Golang, a lot, but I’m routinely embarrassed by Go advocates attempts to dismiss serious PL safety features like option types.
-
-
Replying to @tqbf
Go has a good argument against exceptions. I agree with Go advocates: the Go error handling approach is good.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
Go has a colorable argument about generics. I’m ambivalent. I’d use them if they were available but I might be more productive w/o them.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
Go has no valid argument about its weak, mostly unsafe type system. Go advocates that pretend it does look silly.
3 replies 5 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
How do you propose adding Option<T> without generics? Another special case?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @andygocke
I assume so, yes. I think “no generics” is probably a defensible design decision.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tqbf @andygocke
I think “no generics” is less defensible than “no option types”.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm in the opposite camp. I'm totally fine with no-generics Go and am productive. I still feel the need for option types/sum types.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
My biggest concrete issue with no generics in Go is that it’s a concurrent language with no support for concurrent data structures.
-
-
But you know why it’s like that. I don’t see how they could be clearer about the concept.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I believe Go is like that because Pike made a design mistake early on and stuck to his guns.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.