I agree that this is one of the two large risks.
The other is whether the language remains comparatively easy to learn.
The next largest problem after those two is "what exactly do you mean by
Some people want code stenciling, like C++ (it's fast, it's easy to
understand, code size might explode, generic methods are harder).
Some people want dictionaries (you get type checking and generic methods,
but not too likely you get speed from specialization).
Some people think erased Java-style generics are fine (these do have issues
with reflection, and it might look different w/o type tags).
Note that Java-style generics were supposed to be the best choice for
As a technical problem it is *relatively* easy.
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 5:55:54 AM UTC-5, Doğan Kurt wrote:
> Generics would divide the Go community.
> I would probably never use it, like many people who comes to Go from C.
> People who are already experienced Go programmers also likely to avoid it.
> Java programmers on the other hand will surely overuse it.
> There it is, you have two different Go code bases that looks nothing like
> each others. One uses Generics and the other does not. Nobody wants Go to
> have the same fate as C++. We love how there is only one way to accomplish
> something in Go.
> There are billions of lines of code written in Go. Nobody would happily
> transform all those working codes just to use new idiomatic Go with
> generics. I suspect even Go team would hesitate to transform all the
> standard library.
> If Go team add generics to Go 2, i am afraid that Go 2 will have the same
> fate as python 3.
> Let's hope it never happens.
> On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:25:35 AM UTC+1, 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
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.