"uriel_follower" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Pillsy Wrote: > >> jfd wrote: >> >> > == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu ([email protected])'s >> > article >> >> > >> eaturbrainz >> > >> Back in the day I was writing a kernel, and having to >> > >> rewrite queues for every single type of thing I wanted >> > >> to queue, or use type-casts to enforce strong typing >> > >> of queue elements at runtime, was annoying as fuck. >> > > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/e49ta/go_one_year_ago_today/ >> >> > eaturbrainz's problem is what convinced me of the true value of >> > generics. >> >> At this point I'm mystified as to why language designers just keep on >> making this same mistake by leaving support for generic programming out >> of their statically typed languages. Java and C# had to graft generics >> onto their languages after the fact; why ignore that? > > Can you please explain when have you missed them? Because after writing > quite a bit of Go code, and talking with other people that has written > even more Go code, almost nobody has found this to be an issue. > Specially now the new append() builtin has taken care of most of the > remaining cases where generics might have been marginally useful. > > Saying "what if" is easy, I'm still curious about in what real > circumstances this "ifs" are satisfied, if you have run into any such > cases while writing Go code, I would love to hear about it. > Again, I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but that it is not as > problematic in practice as many people that have never used go seem to > claim. >
People who find generics worthwhile *don't use Go*. So of course the remaining Go users aren't going to miss them. > Because nobody ever reused any code in languages without generics! Sure they did. But they re-use a hell of a lot more *with* generics. (Or at least generics that aren't as pointlessly gimped as the C# generics.)
