On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
So the videos of the Gophercon 2014 are being made available.
Rob Pike did the keynote. At the expected question about
generics,
his answer was There are no plans for generics. I said we're
going to leave the language; we're done..
On 09/05/2014 18:25, brad clawsie wrote:
The official mailing list has practically no mention of generics anymore.
I think it comes up fairly regularly, despite the ML regulars being very
anti-generics. This was posted just 2 months ago:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 05:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 19:37 +, Jesse Phillips via
Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
Ah, well context around it removes all my claims. It is clear
he is saying that Go 1.x will not have generics.
Given the statements
Well, he had previously stated that there would be no breaking
changes, and that if there were changes it would have to be
called go version 2 or something. So when generics were
brought up he stated that there were no plans for generics and
I said we are going to leave the language, we are
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:05:59 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
Well, he had previously stated that there would be no breaking
changes, and that if there were changes it would have to be
called go version 2 or something. So when generics were
brought up he stated that there were no plans for generics
On 08/05/2014 22:09, Bienlein wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
So the videos of the Gophercon 2014 are being made available.
Rob Pike did the keynote. At the expected question about generics,
his answer was There are no plans for generics. I said we're going
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:38:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:05:59 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
Well, he had previously stated that there would be no
breaking changes, and that if there were changes it would
have to be called go version 2 or something. So when
generics were
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 11:46:20 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:38:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:05:59 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
Well, he had previously stated that there would be no
breaking changes, and that if there were changes it would
have to be
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:38:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
I had the opportunity to meet Wirth at CERN, when he and a few
ETHZ members took part on the Oberon Day, back in 2004.
He is really great guy, but he could not understand why Oberon
was being ignored in the industry. As he expected the
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 13:59:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 07:38:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
I had the opportunity to meet Wirth at CERN, when he and a few
ETHZ members took part on the Oberon Day, back in 2004.
He is really great guy, but he could not understand why Oberon
Beyond being fodder for people who don't write Go but hate it for
some reason, this seems to be an ongoing non-event. The official
mailing list has practically no mention of generics anymore.
On 5/9/2014 7:18 AM, Chris wrote:
There is this conflict between textbooks and real world (hardware / software
interaction). Walter once said on this forum that when he sees textbook
examples, he says that things don't really work that way.
Found that out when implementing textbook
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 11:46:20 UTC, Chris wrote:
If not, better not to introduce them. D, at a certain point in
time, started to be designed around templates, or with
templates in mind. I think it was Andrei who convinced Walter
to do that.
It wasn't Andrei, but I don't remember who
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 11:38:13 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
I find this aspect much more interesting than the get generics
or not one. So Rob Pike and the other guy is leaving the
language then?
No, the context around what he said is very important. Google
isn't leaving Go development,
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 19:07:24 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
No, the context around what he said is very important. Google
isn't leaving Go development, generics are not nixed for Go
2.0, the language will continue to see bug fixes. This is all
very clear with context.
I see this as a good.
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 21:03:06 UTC, brad clawsie wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 19:07:24 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
No, the context around what he said is very important. Google
isn't leaving Go development, generics are not nixed for Go
2.0, the language will continue to see bug fixes.
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
So the videos of the Gophercon 2014 are being made available.
Rob Pike did the keynote. At the expected question about
generics,
his answer was There are no plans for generics. I said we're
going to leave the language; we're done..
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 18:29:45 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
This statement doesn't sound like the no generics is the
important part. It seems more like they have no plans to make
Go 2.0, at least not with it bringing big breaking changes as
people keep pointing out will happen.
But that
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
So the videos of the Gophercon 2014 are being made available.
Rob Pike did the keynote. At the expected question about
generics,
his answer was There are no plans for generics. I said we're
going to leave the language; we're done..
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 21:09:38 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
I agree with Paulo. At 54:40 he says what Paulo has already
quoted. And we are done means that's it, folks. It even
sounds to me like the language is finished and it will be left
like that.
Well, he had previously stated that there
On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 19:37 +, Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
Ah, well context around it removes all my claims. It is clear he
is saying that Go 1.x will not have generics.
Given the statements about backward compatibility there is no way Go 1.x
can have generics. I'm fairly
So the videos of the Gophercon 2014 are being made available.
Rob Pike did the keynote. At the expected question about generics,
his answer was There are no plans for generics. I said we're going to
leave the language; we're done..
Discussion ongoing on HN,
22 matches
Mail list logo
