I didn't take part in few of the last surveys. However I filled that very last one and haven't seen any generics-related questions. It was also stated somewhere that some of them randomized? So I answered a lot of weird questions for anything, but language features. Anyways if Go is not poll-driven it doesn't make any sense and couldn't be an argument. Result could be different if people knew that decision will be made out of that survey results. Another thing is that after the years of this generics hype train without any alternative point of view, a lot of public just convinced that it's fine.
среда, 23 декабря 2020 г. в 14:20:24 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:42 AM Kevin Chadwick <m8il...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have to call it out here though as I see statistic abuse on the news >> every >> day. Not to mention that asking the question encourages people to think of >> something. >> >> Ignoring that encouragement in the question (and not remembering survey >> structure). This would more accurately be described as 80% reported not >> needing >> any new features and 15% reported needing Generics! >> > > That re-framing is itself abuse of statistics. Because (as rightly pointed > out by Ian) > > > Of course this isn't definitive, since there was no clear way for people > they say that do not want generics. > > Unless there was a "I don't need any new features" checkbox, exactly 0% of > respondents reported not needing any new features. > There not being such a checkbox might be considered a methodological flaw. > But luckily, the goal was neither to do science, nor to vote, so it doesn't > hugely matter. > > I think what how Ian phrased it, is unambiguously the most accurate > description: 25% of the survey takers answered that question and of those, > 79% mentioned generics. Any inaccuracies come from reading more meaning > into these numbers - as you tried when saying "80% reported not needing any > new features" or as would happen if Go *was* designed based on public polls > and these numbers would be used to say generics where desperately needed. > But it isn't and the survey isn't the (only) reason to include generics and > Ian was quite careful in pointing out the methodological flaws in trying to > interpret the numbers in any of these ways, so there is nothing to see here > :) > > >> >> -- >> 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...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4ea1d4b4-6059-936e-5ad2-c7b4919eb369%40gmail.com >> . >> > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/96a1297f-fbe6-4aac-b577-30d6028d23edn%40googlegroups.com.
