On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Tim Newsham <[email protected]> wrote:
>> * A ducktyping of sorts with interfaces and such. On the surface
>> it just saves
>> you a bunch of "extends XXX", but it actually seems to bridge
>> the gap between
>> dynamically typed world and a statically typed one to an extent
>> that makes me
>> rethink whether static typed languages are as devoid of fun as a
>> Principia Mathematica is.
>
> The type system is more restrictive than duck typing. Thats sort
> of the point of any static type system. But there are useful constructs
> that you can express in a dynamically typed language or a language
> with a more complex type system that you cannot express in go. A
> good, simple example is "map". Go would need generics to support it.
>
$GOOROOT/src/pkg/bytes/bytes.go:248 func ToLower(s []byte) []byte
{ return Map(unicode.ToLower, s) }
