On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kevin Chadwick <m8il1i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, but the Go team needs to be realistic and realise that not everyone > is on > the salary that they are or can afford the time that they can, or even on a > consistent salary at all (e.g. founder with two jobs). People only having limited time is exactly my point. Re-litigating the same arguments over and over again is a drain on everyone's time as well. And it is possible to meaningfully participate in the design process without being paid to do so. I don't get paid to participate in the process either. The time I can spend on it is thus limited. And I've decided that the best use of my time is to try and make the existing design better, instead of attempting to throw it out and write my own. The uncomfortable truth is, that you can't design a major language feature like Generics for a popular language like Go from scratch, without investing significant time into it. *Someone* needs to do it - and it's unreasonable to expect others to do it on your terms. > Casual observations are not worthless and you don't need to have the > answers to know something may seem sub optimal! > Both of these are true. But "I think this design sucks, you should throw it away and start from scratch" is not actionable. It neither makes a strong case for *why* they should start over, nor does it provide a viable alternative to switch *to*. Casual observations *can* be very helpful, even if you don't have the answer. For example, if there is something that you want to do with generics, but can't with this design, it's perfectly reasonable to make that observation - even if you don't know how to fit a solution to your problem into the design. A casual "I don't like this design and would prefer not to add generics" is also helpful (as I said). It's still not very actionable - there is nothing we can do to change your mind, if we feel differently - but at least your vote can be tallied and give an impression of how the community feels. A casual "here is the sketch of an idea that has not been considered before" is also very helpful, even without a full idea of how to implement it. As long as it actually has not been considered before and as long as it at least superficially seems feasible. And my original response was exactly to point out why OP's suggestion does not seem to even superficially be feasible. After ten years of waiting for the "right" generics. This isn't the time to > disregard the option of fundamental changes. I don't think anyone is disregarding that option - or the option of not adding generics to Go at all. In fact, I feel I was pretty clear that I at least am willing to consider a completely different design - as long as it actually takes the form of a fully-fledged design. > p.s. I had already upvoted the proposal actually, as it is certainly well > considered and well constrained. FWIW, I haven't, because there are still very fundamental aspects of the design I'd prefer to change. So I have neither up- nor downvoted and instead commented with my concerns. > -- > 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/1c1ab297-7165-3cc7-e964-20dc74b3eec6%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/CAEkBMfEExA9Gb2WOnR4n%3DadH65%3DuWa5xQkz8F5tG-yBRy0pzYw%40mail.gmail.com.
