I beg to differ. Most Java apps I have seen over many years almost
unanimously suffer from over-modeling. That Go encourages another style of
modeling does not make it too simple. It only makes it different which may
be good or bad according to taste.
That said, I personally think that generics would be a net win if it was
somehow possible to design a version of it that still encourages simple
abstractions rather than the complicated mess so often seen.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 08:37 Haddock, <ffm2...@web.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 9. August 2017 23:29:13 UTC+2 schrieb DV:
>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 5:37:42 AM UTC-6, Haddock wrote:
>>> In my opinion generics added to Go would make Go really take off.
>>> Currently Java developers would not change to Go. With Go having generics
>>> this would change and more people would consider Go also when not coming
>>> from Java/C#/etc.
>> There's no way that any serious Java dev would ever consider Go, generics
>> or not. Why, in Go, you just....write code! In functions! Not a single
>> AbstractSingletonFactoryImpl in sight! </tongueincheek>
>> I used to do C# for a living, and Java before that. What drew me to Go
>> was that it was *not* C# nor Java. That's actually the beautiful thing
>> about it.
> Go does not have the modeling power of Java, C#, Python, etc. The language
> is too simple for that. So Go is not really the real thing for application
> development. But generics would make it possible to drag many things up.
> 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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.