On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 21:00 +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote: > Am 17.02.2014 20:08, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu: > > On 2/17/14, 10:59 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote: > >> On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 17:03:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >>> On 2/16/14, 12:09 PM, Russel Winder wrote: > >>>> Someone with serious knowledge should wade into this campaign of FUD. > >>>> The whole thread is wrong-headed. > >>> > >>> Thanks for mentioning this. It's an interesting thread. I posted a > >>> response: > >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/rxOz-QMyHr4/BbNR_H1zyKkJ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Andrei > >> > >> It looks like you've been completely ignored. > > > > This may be partly a logistics issue - my name appears garbled. > > > >> And I love how the Sort package is their great example of implementing a > >> generic algorithm. I consider it a package which demonstrates the > >> problem with lack of generics.
It is hard to disagree, and I really like Go for its goroutines and channels. > > I would agree that Go's sort tends to confuse people about what problems > > can and cannot be solved with Go-style interfaces. > > > > > > Andrei > > > > You have provided a very nice answer. > > The problem with Go generics is religious, I might have to eat my own > words, but I seriously doubt they will ever support it. There does appear to be a level of intransigence about the expression of the opinion, and indeed the whole dichotomy. I admire the attempt to provide strongly typed duck typing, and the challenge to the need for generics as an orthodoxy. However there is a time to declare a position not entirely viable and to look for a solution. My feeling is the Go core team should move from "we haven't seen a generics system we like" to "we are actively investigating a generics system for Go". Sadly this can only be for Go 2 since they have declared an absolute backward compatibility position for Go 1. > They are too focused with Java and C++ as models, to accept anything > else as proof of them being wrong. Not to mention C#. And OCaml and Haskell. Sadly I don't have the time in the near future to try and design and implement a CSP (process and channels) system for D. Currently JCSP, C ++CSP2, PyCSP, Python-CSP are the realizations of CSP I know of, and all of them were a lot of work. Go has effectively proved that CSP (or at least it's equivalence of it: Rob Pike maintains he developed hos ideas independently in the Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo sequence) is an extremely sensible architecture for high performance concurrency and parallelism in a commercial context. Analogously DataRush has shown the effectiveness of a more general dataflow model in Big Data. What we really need is a couple of PhD students to work on this. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
