It's actually really frustrating how folks in the Golang world consistently fight against generics. I get you may not be building data structures. But maybe you'll consume the work of the people who do?
-
-
Replying to @KirinDave
Or you might want to call map(). It’s also weird how many people deny that the Go community is opposed to generics.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @xjones95 @KirinDave
https://github.com/robpike/filter is an argument against generics.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"We are not against generics, but..." *proceeds to straw man generics* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622417 I've talked with some people on big language teams about this. They're all quite baffled what the holdup is.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
He links to https://research.swtch.com/generic Which is a very weird article that raises... very confusing points. And it really seems like the team has refused to look at how anyone but Java and C++ do generics and called it a day.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ocaml Modules and Haskell's Backpack offer a different version of generics that, while not without tradeoffs, offer a way forward that would work very well, wouldn't substantially increase binary size, wouldn't hurt compile times much, and would be flexible to future modification
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You wouldn’t even need modules. Just make polymorphic hash, <, and == functions, and add basic generics with no typeclasses. It’s a simple worse-is-better solution that would fit in perfectly with Go.
-
-
Narrator's voice: Golang proposals never went well, but people tried anyways.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.