On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 21:03:06 UTC, brad clawsie wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 19:07:24 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
No, the context around what he said is very important. Google
isn't leaving Go development, generics are not nixed for Go
2.0, the language will continue to see bug fixes. This is all
very clear with context.
I see this as a good. What would you rather use - a third party
library written against abstractions or one written against
concrete types? I would rather use a library based on concrete
types. My observation is that the more abstraction people
indulge, the greater the chance I will regard one of their
abstractions as a code smell.
Quite likely you won't be able to use that 3d party library with
your types at all and will need runtime conversion between
library types and your own. std.algorithm is prime example of how
generalization improves code reuse.
And it isn't the the case that the lack of generics is
inhibiting participation. Go's library selection is already
very good and getting better daily. Just yesterday I needed a
Go lz4 compression library and was able to find three distinct
implementations. Go is not hurting for third-party libraries.
This has nothing to do with the language. Existing mainstream
languages are so bad that people will contribute to anything that
is backed by solid brand and has enough fuss about. I clearly
remember seeing several articles about crazy library design that
is forced by Go lack of generics of any sort.
