On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:54:26 +0200 "Peter Alexander" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 September 2012 at 10:27:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky > wrote: > > If he were talking about some minor insignificant feature, then > > I agree > > it'd be goofy to reject a language solely because of that. But > > that's > > not what's happening. Generics are a major thing. Many people > > *do* find > > them to make a big difference. > > So, with this in mind, do you think these hypothetical people are > all justified? > > (a) [Go programmer]: D is rubbish because it doesn't have > channels. > (b) [Lisp programmer]: D is rubbish because it doesn't have > homoiconicity. > (c) [Haskell programmer]: D is rubbish because it doesn't have > full type inference. > > All of those things are considered "a major thing" by their > users, and many people do find them to "make a big difference." > If they find those things to be as important to them as I find metaprogramming to be, then yes, of course. Personally, I think it's a stretch to compare those to "having generics". But that's just me...and, apparently, a hell of a lot of other people too, to Pike's dismay. > My question to you: Is it okay to reject D solely with these > arguments? If it's in-line with their needs, then yes. It'd be both selfish and absurd for us to demand that everyone tries out and becomes proficient with our language and our language's way of doing things before deciding whether or not our language is right for them and worth their time. And in addition to all that, I doubt very much that most people who say things to the effect of "I won't use Go because it lacks generics" are *truly* basing it *purely* on the lack of generics, so the whole question is academic anyway. Hell, I'm sure *I've* at some point probably given the impression that generics are the only reason I'm not into Go. But the reality is that there are also other reasons, and "generics" is merely one of the biggest and most convenient to point out. Just as an example, I'm sure a *lot* of the "No generics, not interested" crowd would also find this applicable, too: "I'm happy enough with my current language and don't have time to try another out unless there's already something about it that really stands out to me as being likely worth the investment."
