To sacrifice simplicity of readability for simpler writing is to have never been tasked with reading a 25kloc C# project and having to open 10 windows just for the object-oriented pyramid of generic abstract partial template class factories
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:44:10 PM UTC-8, hui zhang wrote: > > Disadvantage of Go > 1 No Generic For Now > That make user coding repeat code many times, even for basic type such as > int float bool > It is not easy , even to make a generic min function. > using interface will always check type casting. > and for []interface{} in generic function, u can't do cast > > 2 Incomplete Type in Basic Lib > Take math lib as an example, math.Max math.Min are only for float64 , > you have do stupid conversion for other type. > > 3 No Default Value for struct. > Consider multilayer struct. A {B {C {D {E {F} } } } > to init A to a default value will be complicated. > And how about A[] slice > And what if D E F are from third party lib ? > You have to dig into 3rd party code just for its default value. > For It may have none zero default value. > > 4 Can not Cycle import. > package A B can not import each other at the same time. > While other language can. > It seems not a big deal just put the the common thing in a new package > But when the package and project grow bigger, it just easy to say. > This change will affect all caller. > > 5 Inconsistent type conversion > bool type are normal type just like int and float , > but u can't do below. while other type can cast to others > int(bool) bool(int) > > > 6 No multi casting expression > func foo() (int16, int8) > var i,j int32 = (int32,int32)(foo()) > Since go can't do this, why go provide multi return value. > > 7 No Ternary Expression > hardly find a language without it except go > > 8 No Negative Index for slice > all other script language support a[-1] as a[len(a)-1] > > > When programing in go > we have to do repeated type casting many times, due to the above. > write long code for Ternary ,int(bool) a[-1] etc > init big struct with default value. > Which make Go not an Elegant and simple language. > Once I thought go was a simple language, > but in fact we write more code. > > All above are proposal for many times. > And it is 6 years(or more). > These basic functions are still not added. some of that should be add in > version 1.0 > I belive most above could make go simpler, > someone know a little programing could know how to use it. > however someone still fear it make go complicate like c++ > -- 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.