On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 12:23:35 PM UTC-8 Space A. wrote: > > OOP isn't specific about how inheritance is handled (or if it is even > supported) > Oh my... It is pure sophistic nonsense. OOP is all about inheritance. Not > just whether you have "objects" in a language spec or not. > Sorry to disappoint you (actually, no, not sorry) but OOP has nothing to do with inheritance. It's a common feature in object-oriented programming but it's not essential.
Moreover, Go has inheritance as well (struct embedding and interface inheritance), making it a fairly typical example. The only significant difference is that Go has structural typing, instead of manually declaration of implemented interfaces. > But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems alarmist. > Generics will open a huge door for libraries to be written that will make > our lives easier. I'm thinking specifically about data processing and > machine learning. A lot of devs use Python right now for this which leads > to duplication of code across languages. Complex algorithms will be able > to be shared without hacky type conversions wrapping every function call. > Who is "yours"? You talk about Python so just go ahead and use Python if > it serves you, convince your team that Python is better, whatever. > You know that this argument can be applied to you as well? > среда, 30 декабря 2020 г. в 22:46:12 UTC+3, nichol...@gmail.com: > >> OOP isn't specific about how inheritance is handled (or if it is even >> supported). The basic definition is objects with fields and methods, and >> being able to address the itself (typically using 'this' or 'self', but Go >> is unique in that you define what to call the object). It does composition >> differently than most languages, but the functional needs are met. >> >> But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems alarmist. >> Generics will open a huge door for libraries to be written that will make >> our lives easier. I'm thinking specifically about data processing and >> machine learning. A lot of devs use Python right now for this which leads >> to duplication of code across languages. Complex algorithms will be able >> to be shared without hacky type conversions wrapping every function call. >> We'll be able to use things like trees as simply as we use maps or slices. >> I don't think we'll see the language turn into the grossness that is Java >> or C++ because of it. >> >> On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 4:27:15 AM UTC-8 Space A. wrote: >> >>> Go doesn't have classes and is not an OOP language. >>> >>> Classes (like in Java) vs structs (like in Go) is about inheritance vs >>> composition, not about attaching fields and methods. Inheritance implies >>> type hierarchy, child and parent, virtual functions, abstract and final >>> implementations and so on so forth to keep this all of this manageable. >>> >>> >>> >>> вторник, 29 декабря 2020 г. в 23:27:45 UTC+3, Alex Besogonov: >>> >>>> Please, stop being so condescending to newcomers and non-professional >>>> developers. Generics as uses by end-users will improve their experience, >>>> not make it harder. >>>> >>>> (And what is this obsession with "classes"? Go has them - structs with >>>> methods are classes). >>>> >>>> -- 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/7b58c437-4507-4d75-b0a2-de7b0ba8b58dn%40googlegroups.com.
