Back when I first learned about the diamond problem with multiple 
inheritance, I've known we need someone to invent the next and better thing 
after inheritance. I do hope somebody smarter than me is somewhere trying. 
Or even has succeeded.

And back when I first learned about the code bloat that could result from 
C++ generics/templates, I've known we need somebody invent the next and 
better thing after "Generators". Generators, by the way, first appeared in 
the 1950's, when they were considered a failure.

It's been decades, and I'm still waiting. I would like to believe the Go 
Authors are waiting for better solutions. Or even inventing them.

N.B. All praise to the Go Authors for upgrading past the massive 
inefficiency of #include files. Also for many other things.

Well built software is easily modified. Easily-modified software is 
modified and modified until it is incomprehensible and no longer easily 
modified. Progress gets slower and slower and slower. Until it stops 
entirely. Having the maturity and character to refrain from second-best 
modifications is rare and wonderful. The ideas behind generics and 
inheritance are basically: "Do this thing just like that other thing, 
except differently here and here". Re-use code and concepts. I can feel the 
passion for this goal. I have felt the sand in my gears as I drive the new 
machine with 256 levers and switches.

*On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 8:25:35 AM UTC+2, dc0d wrote:*
> *All forms of generics that I would love to have in Go: ...*

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 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to