alan.f...@gmail.com <alan.f...@gmail.com>:
> The problem is that many of us don't find the sort of code used in
> contracts (as currently envisaged) to be 'normal' at all and we're worried
> that the Go community at large will find them difficult to write (though a
> tool may help), understand or use. What you've just said, Jeff,enforces
> that view.
It runs parallel to my concerns about language compactness, too.
So far, every variation of "contracts" I've seen is too bulky and
complex to make me feel comfortable. Thus, Jeff's objections seem
inevitable to me; this is what *will* happen when Go users who are not
theorists collide with a proposal that sacrifices the lucidity of the
language.
Better no generics at all than a design that produces reactions like Jeff's.
This problem is hard. I don't think anyone has had quite the right insight
yet.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
--
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.
