On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 03:17 PM, andrew.mez...@gmail.com wrote: > >>increase in cognitive load to decipher chains of type definitions. > > Sorry, but who are members of this mail lists? > This is a first time when I hear about such loads such as the > `cognitive load`. > Also I am possible here a single person who does not know anything > about the `cognitive load to decipher chains of type definitions`. > I am mostly business man and a programmer just for my own > requirements. > I love to implements parsers, code generators, some effective > algorithms for solving some problem at the most effective time. > Also my work includes a diagnose the failures and locate them. > And I want to apologize for my illiteracy (thick-headed), but I do not > really was expecting that all members of this mail list worry mostly > about the ` increase in cognitive load to decipher chains of type > definitions` and don't worry about other things. What I mean is that most people who have followed the past generics discussions already know it's possible to implement them with efficient memory use and performance. So they don't need to worry much about that. What stops them being added to the language is: can they be implemented without making Go a much more complex language than it is now. In my opinion complex or large languages result in code that is much harder and expensive to maintain over the long term. Ian
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
