Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Generics support a library handling type-safe registry services. Using such a library will not require advanced generics understanding. > On Mar 19, 2021, at 11:53 AM, cpu...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 1:53:30 PM UTC+1 ren...@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> One other point

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> > 1. Since some time I don't know what "Go team" is. As Google put a > trademark on Go, and its own label on golang.org website, so they > obviously wanted that everyone was aware of who stands behind the project, > it would be correct to say "a group of Google employees". Those who are

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 1:53:30 PM UTC+1 ren...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > One other point on this. Generics will be trivial for 95% of the people - > they will only need to be able to read and write the instantiation > statements of type safe collections. > > Most developers don’t write

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Believe it or not, that wasn't my intention at all. There certainly are other people unhappy with the generics proposal, and they were burned too. I was attempting to acknowledge your position compassionately while also arguing that things aren't nearly so bad as you say. Unfortunately, it seems

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 4:54 AM Space A. wrote: > > 2. Sure, Ian has revealed how that "consensus" was measured. By counting > "thumbs up", "thumbs down" and "confused" emojis. So Go is not driven by > polls, it's driven by emojis. > For the record, this statement is false. That is not what I

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 4:30 AM Space A. wrote: > Two of them are recent discussions which I was part of, and yet another is > also a recent post, not really a discussion since there are 2 messages in > thread, just an opinion. > So yea, thank you for proving my words. > You asked for some proof

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Ok so this is a nice post. What you are trying to do with it is to make an impression that there is only I in the whole Universe who was unhappy with that proposal. It's not true. Open the issue and read down below comments by other people. Some others who might also wanted to give their feedback

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Two of them are recent discussions which I was part of, and yet another is also a recent post, not really a discussion since there are 2 messages in thread, just an opinion. So yea, thank you for proving my words. чт, 18 мар. 2021 г. в 22:00, Ian Lance Taylor : > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:11 AM

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I think we all want to stick our noses in this thread. I'm going to stick my nose in it too :) Space, I don't think you'll ever be happy as a result of this discussion, no matter what evidence or arguments others provide you. I think the fact is that you were burned by the outcome of the generics

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:11 AM Space A. wrote: > > > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an > example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a > good answer to that question? Thanks. > > Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I will point out again - there is a big difference between reading/writing generic “usage” code, and generic “implementation” code. The vast majority of developers will only need to do the former - and modern IDEs make this somewhat trivial. > On Mar 18, 2021, at 12:57 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:59 PM Kent Sandvik wrote: > So if I understand this correctly, you don't want to learn a new syntax in > the language? > That is not what I tried to say :) I'm leaning towards being in favor of adding generics. I was trying to say that I think it's unavoidable that Go

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I am very much pro generics, having used them with Go for many years. I have only found them to be occasionally useful (10%), but on those occasions, it saves me time, improves reliability, and enhances the ability to maintain the code. Having a background in MASM, TASM, Forth, Lisp, C++ leaves

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

So if I understand this correctly, you don't want to learn a new syntax in the language? On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:37 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts < golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I also think there is definitely credence to the idea that we read more > code than we write (after all,

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I also think there is definitely credence to the idea that we read more code than we write (after all, a lot of Go's design is based on that idea too). So I definitely agree that most Go programmers will find it hard to avoid generics, even if they want. Usage of the language is very likely to

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I think the most plausible events are that various collections apis make it into the api as a “replacement” for the non type safe interface based ones. > On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Kent Sandvik wrote: > >  > I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are bad > for

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I'm very dumb, but if you don't want to use generics or think they are bad for the language, why can't you just ignore them and not use them? On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Space A. wrote: > Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of > existence of open and public

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics, I will do it myself. Here is it: https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/LEEuJPOg0oo/m/-EZp3YSeBQAJ -- You received this message because you

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

The same as you just did, completely ignored everything I said in this thread. чт, 18 мар. 2021 г. в 16:25, Axel Wagner : > I find your response disrespectful. You are completely ignoring (in the > sense of "refusing to take notice of") what I wrote. > I don't think it is possible to have a

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I find your response disrespectful. You are completely ignoring (in the sense of "refusing to take notice of") what I wrote. I don't think it is possible to have a productive conversation as long as you behave this way. On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:48 PM Space A. wrote: > That's exactly what I'm

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

One other point on this. Generics will be trivial for 95% of the people - they will only need to be able to read and write the instantiation statements of type safe collections. Most developers don’t write the generic implementations - these are provided by library authors. As I’ve said

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

That's exactly what I'm saying, topic of dropping generics was never raised, so landing of some version of generics was implied by the process. In fact just a start of that process implied that dropping them entirely was never a question. There was no public discussion with that regard, no

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

ISTM that we already provided a bunch of evidence, which you are rejecting. so "any evidence" clearly is not good enough and you should be a bit more specific. Just to name a few specific examples of evidence provided: • The FAQ, as well as any interview of the question, have stated clearly that

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Thursday, 18 March 2021 at 13:11:33 UTC+1 Space A. wrote: > > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an > example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a > good answer to that question? Thanks. > > Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a good answer to that question? Thanks. Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there was an open and public discussion on

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A. wrote: > > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion? What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a good answer to that question?

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I can, and I searched, and right answer is there was no open public discussion on dropping Generics proposal entirely, only "counterproposals". But it's a no brainer that if you propose anything other than "No Generics, never" you will end up with some form of them. ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 14:57,

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Dnia 2021-03-17, o godz. 14:27:51 "Space A." napisał(a): > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion? Can't you search for yourself? When I submitted my rough counterproposal there were already over 50 others linked at Team's (compile contracts one). Wasn't it a

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion? ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 02:12, Ian Lance Taylor : > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:51 AM Space A. wrote: > > > > > (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion - > which is at least easy to address, because

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> Russ locked the proposal issue after it was accepted. Proposal published on 12 Jan Russ "accepted" it on 10 Feb Russ locked it on 20 Feb with " That is our usual way of using issues, but this issue continues to gather comments that are not relevant to tracking the work of implementing the

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:51 AM Space A. wrote: > > > (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion - > > which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was > > over three years of active discussion on this) > > No, and I can repeat, there was no

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:00 AM Space A. wrote: > > > The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became > a formal proposal. It was not new. > > There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only at > the final version of proposal, if and when they

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:10 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > - We can create a hypothesis, that if only people coding in Go for > more than N years, the results may get very different or even > inverted. Due to the above we cannot decide the validity of the > hypothesis. The validity

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

One more person pro-generics switching the topic to my personality and telling me what to do and what my problem is. вт, 16 мар. 2021 г. в 18:26, CreateSpaceMap : > Sorry, I might sound a little blunt but this pique my curiosity, how much > time have you invest in Go and what do you earn for a

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Sorry, I might sound a little blunt but this pique my curiosity, how much time have you invest in Go and what do you earn for a living? You can assure Go didn't just happen to be popular, they are built with blood and sweat, what have you done along the way? Countless of developers accept

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:51 PM Space A. wrote: > No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea > of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a > "discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not > of generics themselves

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion - which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was over three years of active discussion on this) No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea of generics in Go should

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Space A. wrote: > That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't > invest so much time because we have to earn money for living. > As I said, I understand that reality. It is unfortunate, but given that language design takes time and effort,

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> This seems very dismissive of the many members of the community which *did* invest the time and energy to discuss the design for the past years. When the contracts design was announced in 2018 , the process was explained. Including the fact that it is a draft,

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:00 PM Space A. wrote: > There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only > at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's > the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that process? > Once you published,

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became a formal proposal. It was not new. There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's the point of having formal proposals if

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:03 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs > up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were critics. > But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more > supporters than critics. I

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Very well said. > On Mar 15, 2021, at 7:04 PM, Jeremy French wrote: > > I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision > that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the > discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet...

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet... it continues. For context, I was against the generics proposal, primarily

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM atd...@gmail.com wrote: > > I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity > votes is not a good measure of things. > A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in computer > science and engineering and there has to

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity votes is not a good measure of things. A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in computer science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to the more technical opinions that is not

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A. wrote: > > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of > https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md. > None of them have been adopted. > > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Dnia 2021-03-15, o godz. 15:08:22 "Space A." napisał(a): > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of > critics Apparently not that lot. Second (publicized) design was for me, and likely for many other "vocal critics", good enough. My personal (and fresh)

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Entropy tends to grow. Good things tend to become less good and even bad over time. This is how the Universe works. Does C++ become a better language by adding more and more features? What about Java? What makes you think that people who were behind other languages weren't doing the same as what

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md . None of them have been adopted. I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was withdrawn only because of active resistance

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Sorry, of course it's Robert, my mistake. пн, 15 мар. 2021 г. в 05:30, Ian Lance Taylor : > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Space A. wrote: > > > > And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it (before accepting > proposal in less than a month after it was published). =) > > There may be

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Space A. wrote: > > And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it (before accepting proposal > in less than a month after it was published). =) There may be some confusion here. Are you referring to the Featherweight Go paper

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:59 AM Space A. wrote: > > You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it looks > like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you mentioned (and > most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees. They work for a > company

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:19 AM Space A. wrote: > > > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been > > going on for more than a decade. > That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was > always "we will add them" sooner or later. Please

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I considered generics so important to our workflow that I added it quite some time ago, Go is an implementation language, you may implement anything you like with it. If you do not like the way it does something, you can use it to create a different language, that is what real programmers do.

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 6:24 PM Space A. wrote: > There is a huge difference between generics and some regular questions > like `Etag` implementation, isn't it? In time, investments, "community > demand", commitments to upper management, etc > Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that Russ has

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

hi jan, i mostly share your perspective, but i may be a bit more optimistic. the language as-is can be used to write horrible code already (i know because i did and still sometimes do). i am also sure that many will "abstract prematurely" before they see the light and come to reason (i will

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> Here is a recent example I was involved in . He originally said, in no uncertain terms, that `ETag`s will be supported when an `embed.FS` is served over `net/http`. There is a huge difference between generics and some regular

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Space A. wrote: > You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it > looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you > mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees. > They work for a company and

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Saturday, 13 March 2021 at 15:31:05 UTC+1 Space A. wrote: > There wasn't even a poll or anything. So the question of whether this > topic should be dropped completely (a lot of reasons why) has not been > thought out. > It was already explained that Go development is not driven by polls or

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts wrote: > > I don't think it is useful to quibble over the definition of "ignore". When I > said it is demonstrably false that arguments have been ignored, I was > assuming what I perceive to be the common definition: "refuse to take

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees. They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do. If, as you say, they

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I don't think it is useful to quibble over the definition of "ignore". When I said it is demonstrably false that arguments have been ignored, I was assuming what I perceive to be the common definition: "refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. fail to consider (something

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:18 PM Bruno Albuquerque wrote: > FWIIW, I also agree that "ignore" makes no sense here. You might listen and > think about several opinions/options and conclude that one of them is the > best one. This does not mean you ignored all the others. You do not ignore the

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:19 PM Space A. wrote: > > The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been > going on for more than a decade. > That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was > always "we will add them" sooner or later. > It is somewhat

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was always "we will add them" sooner or later. сб, 13 мар. 2021 г. в 17:31, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

FWIIW, I also agree that "ignore" makes no sense here. You might listen and think about several opinions/options and conclude that one of them is the best one. This does not mean you ignored all the others. On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:06 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:00 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Axel Wagner > wrote: > > > We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means "be > unaware of or pretend they don't exist". > > You seem to use it as "disagree about their

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Axel Wagner wrote: > We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means "be > unaware of or pretend they don't exist". > You seem to use it as "disagree about their validity or the weight they are > given in the decision". That seems

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:42 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not false at all. If you have more than one party, differing in > conflicting opinions on a subject and you make a final decision, you > _must_ ignore at least arguments of one of the parties. We have different

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Hello again. Looks like I have the several problems. :-) First one is my English, it seems my written explanations not properly describe my wishes. Next one is that I have missed the already closed discussion and include my opinion in context where it would be unnecessary. So, of course, of

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:31 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts wrote: > I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be added > to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from all sides > have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached. > > You

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I want to re-iterate: The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been going on for more than a decade. All arguments from all sides have gotten fair consideration. A decision was reached. You might not agree with that decision. But saying that "there are no arguments" or

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

> There have been many discussions and debates about generics (first as to whether they should be added at all That's simply not true, there have never been raised a discussion of whether they should be added or not. There wasn't even a poll or anything. So the question of whether this topic

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

HI Martin, as Jan already explained, you're not only writing code, you also reading it. And you have to understand what's written. At the same time you're not just coding in Go, you're using the whole ecosystem including libraries and tools. So the mantra "just don't use if you don't like'' does

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

It's not because the arguments didn't appear numerous / convincing enough that they were not taken into account. You are just stating your incapacity to accept that you might be wrong, as anyone can, and that you cannot discuss something (clearly because you don't want to *discuss*, you want

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Martin Schnabel wrote: > as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with > generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the > negative mails to this list. That nonchalantly ignores that code is way more often read

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

(sorry space a, i didn't reply to list) hi alex and space a. as far as i know there is no reason that anybody has to write code with generics when they are available. therefor i really don't understand the negative mails to this list. do you also want others not to use them? how would that

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

There is no rationale. They decided, and they implemented. No one from Go team ever took the argument against it seriously because "community" demands, blabla. And because Russ Cox with friends written an academic paper so this is now a question of pure science. Write your own and they could

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Hello, Thank you for the answers. Now I have something to read. :-) So, sorry for my English. Personally, I would add a dynamic dispatching into GO and left language without generic in order to keep simplicity for GO and to make life of the applied programmers easier :-) What I'm looking for is

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 7:31 AM alex-coder wrote: > > Hello again, > I apologize for being so intrusive. > Where it is possible to read about the evaluations of labor and complexity for > GO itself for different implementations to introduce generic in GO ? LIke others, I'm not quite sure what

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

I would also add that there was an old generics design draft based around contracts [1] that was not accepted for multiple reasons, but one was that it wasn't clear how the implementation could actually work. This suggests that implementation issues are definitely considered during the proposal

Re: [go-nuts] No generic, part -2

The title of your message seems to indicate that you are looking for arguments not to implement generics. You should be aware that the proposal to add generics has been accepted , so the discussion of whether or not Go will get

[go-nuts] No generic, part -2

Hello again, I apologize for being so intrusive. Where it is possible to read about the evaluations of labor and complexity for GO itself for different implementations to introduce generic in GO ? Thank you. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups