> Wait, I think I get it. Are you making a distinction between object
oriented /languages/ and object oriented /programs/ (which may or may not
be written in an object oriented language)?
You are absolutely correct, my friend, so you see, OOP is just a paradigm
in software development. Program
> First of all I feel it's more rhetoric, it's same as "Less is
exponentially more", and "[Go] ... Arguably more object oriented than say
Java or C++ ". I believe if you think logically "less" could not be "more",
right, and you wouldn't insist on that? Same goes to the statement that Go
is
Actually not "people mean the literal opposite of what they say", but
"people interpret wrongly when trying to read literally". At least I can
imagine myself saying something similar to "Go is more object oriented than
..." if it's not regarding general classification of languages. Maybe I
even
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 3:04 PM Space A. wrote:
> > I don't see a lot of room for interpretation here.
>
> Well, I do. I do believe if you truly think he meant "Go is OOP language"
> and continue insisting you are wrong.
>
Okay. I don't believe "people mean the literal opposite of what they say"
Ok I see you change a little bit your position, so I only comment on this:
> His verbatim quote is "Go is a profoundly object oriented language.
Arguably more object oriented than say Java or C++". That clearly
contradicts your statement that Go is not an OOP language. He also goes to
great
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Space A. wrote:
> > Javascript is an incredibly popular language with non-inheritance OOP.
> Or, at least, no inheritance at the type-level (so either way, invalidating
> your statement that OOP is about type-hierarchies).
>
This is debatable but JS is a non-OOP
> Javascript is an incredibly popular language with non-inheritance OOP.
Or, at least, no inheritance at the type-level (so either way, invalidating
your statement that OOP is about type-hierarchies).
This is debatable but JS is a non-OOP language. And yet if you wonder,
there is no definition of
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 1:23 AM Space A. wrote:
> > 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
> 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
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:27 PM Alex Besogonov
wrote:
> Moreover, Go has inheritance as well (struct embedding and interface
> inheritance), making it a fairly typical example.
>
Interfaces yes (though I would use "subtyping", not "inheritance", but
potato tomato), but struct embedding, no.
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.
>
> 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.
> But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems alarmist.
Generics
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
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:16 PM Jeremy French wrote:
> This discussion bears a lot of similarity to the argument about
> inheritance, and Go solved that issue rather elegantly with interfaces -
> describe the behavior you need instead of the types you'll accept. I'm
> wondering if there's a
This conversation makes me want to consider whether there's a way to solve
the problem that Generics solves, but solve it in a different way. This
discussion bears a lot of similarity to the argument about inheritance, and
Go solved that issue rather elegantly with interfaces - describe the
I'm sure my thought is off-topic and is not applicable, I shall give a try
after seeing the trends in programming and non-programming world. There is
an "overlap" between Generic and non-Generic. If it can be solve between
the two sides, that's easy with "translation" to and back?
When we have
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
Of course generics will make everything harder. We learn harder, we read
harder, we think harder, we write harder. I use C++ for more than 10 years.
I know the harder. Whether or not experience is improving, life is harder
and the language is rotten.
On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 4:27:45
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).
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 5:01 PM L Godioleskky wrote:
> Hopefully the GO leadership will isolate Generics to a module so that those
> who dont wish to use them can quietly ignore them, while those that believe
> Generics have value can just import the relevant module(s)
It's a language change,
Hopefully the GO leadership will isolate Generics to a module so that those
who dont wish to use them can quietly ignore them, while those that believe
Generics have value can just import the relevant module(s)
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 4:32:30 AM UTC-5 rickti...@googlemail.com
wrote:
My point of view is that Generics should not become part of the Go standard
library. I appreciate there are use cases where it is very helpful to have,
but I do not believe that adds value to Go. The real value for Go is it's
simplicity, avoidance of generics and avoidance of classes. This
" If generics gets added to Go, we're opening a very dangerous door, and
it will be the downfall of Go because - and Robert Griesemer this is
especially addressed to you - what's next then? Seriously, what's next? ...
"
.. AI, followed by cryto currency and asexual repoduction
On Tuesday,
Who said anything about gold standards?
This is about generics going away and I would argue that many if not all
computer languages that have generics also have a user base that is
overwhelmingly in favor of it compared to it not existing. Perhaps another
flavor of generics would be better but
If Java and C++ were the perfection of computer language evolution, then
there would be no need for Go. Using your predecessors as the gold standard
makes no sense, because if they were, then no other iteration would be
necessary. We wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no
On 26-12-2020, Christian Staffa wrote:
> I would rather have a survey with generics specific question that would she=
> d a better light to this topic. at least now, after following this discussi=
> on. i also think that it could be good to add it but is it worth when it al=
> so adds complexity?
I would rather have a survey with generics specific question that would shed a
better light to this topic. at least now, after following this discussion. i
also think that it could be good to add it but is it worth when it also adds
complexity? then i would say no thank you. go is powerful and
25% of the survey takers answered the question means 75% of the survey
takers think there is no need to and any features in the language. This is
a common mistake of SURVIVOR BIAS.
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 4:49:48 AM UTC+8 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:24 AM
Dnia 2020-12-25, o godz. 11:28:54
"Space A." napisał(a):
> What a ridiculous bullshit.
Please keep discussion here civilized.
This is not a proper place for name-calling and expletives.
--
Wojciech S. Czarnecki
<< ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
What a ridiculous bullshit.
пятница, 25 декабря 2020 г. в 19:49:26 UTC+3, Henrik Johansson:
> Ok maybe this thread has gone on too long.
> Both Java and C++ has benefited greatly from generics and most of their
> respective communities wouldn't want them gone. I am pretty sure that's
> what
Ok maybe this thread has gone on too long.
Both Java and C++ has benefited greatly from generics and most of their
respective communities wouldn't want them gone. I am pretty sure that's
what will happen with Go as well. Can we leave it now before we go from
"corruption" to whatever hyperbole is
Yes, I agree with you. I use go for more than 3 years. The language is
simple and elegant. But generics will destroy this. Generics bring a lot of
complexity, make language seems ugly with only a few benifit. They say you
can ignore it. Infact you can not. This language is on the way of
> Tasteless attempt at humour.
Our collective taste is ruined by the
anosmia of a contemporary disease.
Anthony
--
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
Simplicity is not an easy topic to discuss. Personally, I would like to
define simplicity in the source code in terms of complexity. In the code,
complexity comes from the irreversibility of our design decisions.
Go has no need for generics on the receiver side. It is possible to define
ad-hoc
On 23-12-2020, Kaveh Shahbazian wrote:
> --=_Part_8328_927921797.1608758069173
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="=_Part_8329_1642814539.1608758069173"
>
> --=_Part_8329_1642814539.1608758069173
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
On 22-12-2020, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Martin Hanson
> wrote:
>>
>> @Ian, if you're succumbing to outside pressure, please don't.
>>
>> If you on the other hand is pro-generics to Go, then of course that is
>> your right.
>>
>> I for one doesn't hope that the
> Personally, though, I must say that the generics discussion has been
going on for 10 years (and even more, if we don't limit ourselves to Go)
and I don't - personally - believe that there is much hidden cost or
surprising benefit left to be discovered.
There is nothing hidden and nothing
Prime driver of Java's success were enterprises with huge amount of
investments (money) into ecosystem along with all JSRs developed by
companies and groups with J2EE becoming de-facto a standard for building
enterprise applications. And all this was happening way before any generics.
среда,
On 23-12-2020, Jeremy French wrote:
> I'd like to second the notion that the argument "if you don't like them,=20
> don't use them," is an invalid argument. Anyone who's been in the game for=
> any length of time knows that more than we'd like, we're repairing someone=
> else's code, as opposed
On 22-12-2020, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:24 AM Markus Heukelom
> wrote:
>>
>> Why not issue a poll on generics, was this ever done? (I could've missed it,
>> I am only following Go ~2 years). While the community has a vote in
>> accepting/rejecting the current generics
To add some weight to the pro generic side - from someone who doesn’t
necessarily think Go needs them - generics and more specifically the “Java
Collections” package was a prime driver in Java’s success. Moving highly tuned
and verified implementations into the core library removed a huge
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:17 PM Martin Hanson
wrote:
> @Ian, for more than 10 years we have managed nicely without generics.
>
Of course, this doesn't answer how we'd have managed *with* them.
We did manage for decades without general purpose CPUs. We did manage for
several decades without
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 6:17 AM Martin Hanson
wrote:
>
> After generics gets added, it's going to be something else next time, and
> again and again. The list goes on and on about changes people want to
> make to Go. Not real life problems, just so-called "nice to have".
>
> No, the added and
On 12/23/20 11:19 AM, Axel Wagner 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
@Alex Besogonov:
> Can you provide concrete examples of code that would become more
> complicated and/or slower with the addition of generics? I'm
> genuinely researching it.
I'm not the one wanting to change the language, it's the other way
around. You have to provide concrete examples of why
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
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:48 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:24 AM Markus Heukelom
> wrote:
> >
> > Why not issue a poll on generics, was this ever done? (I could've missed
> it, I am only following Go ~2 years). While the community has a vote in
> accepting/rejecting
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:42 AM Kevin Chadwick 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
On 12/23/20 8:06 AM, Alex Besogonov wrote:
> In general, Go managed to tread a very fine line between "overcomplicated
> nonsense" and "stupidly verbose" pretty well. So I suggest trusting the
> language
> maintainers. They are doing a great job!
I wholeheartedly agree with this and thank you
On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 11:38:54 AM UTC-8 Martin Hanson wrote:
> I think people who want generics added to Go should go and program in Java
> or C++.
>
Perhaps you should switch to Python if you don't want
generics?
> Adding generics to Go will ruin the beautiful simplicity of the
There are many shops that exclude using certain features (eg exceptions in
C++). It makes interoperability and using 3rd party libs more difficult (plus
other issues) but it can be done.
> On Dec 22, 2020, at 9:41 PM, Jeremy French wrote:
>
> I'd like to second the notion that the argument
I'd like to second the notion that the argument "if you don't like them,
don't use them," is an invalid argument. Anyone who's been in the game for
any length of time knows that more than we'd like, we're repairing someone
else's code, as opposed to writing our own from scratch. If there is a
Artur Vianna> you can keep writing your standard Go as it never existed.
L Godioleskky> those of us who want to ignore them can easily do so
Nope. You can neither pretend "it never existed" nor "ignore" no part of the
language.
You as a programmer are supposed to read and *understand* a lot
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:19 AM Space A. wrote:
> > Again, it bears repeating: "The Go designers where against generics" is
> historical fiction. "The Go team is succumbing to public pressure" is
> political fiction. Both are simply false. Anyone saying either of those
> either misunderstood
> Again, it bears repeating: "The Go designers where against generics" is
historical fiction. "The Go team is succumbing to public pressure" is
political fiction. Both are simply false. Anyone saying either of those
either misunderstood something someone on the Go team said, or is repeating
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Martin Hanson
wrote:
>
> @Ian, if you're succumbing to outside pressure, please don't.
>
> If you on the other hand is pro-generics to Go, then of course that is
> your right.
>
> I for one doesn't hope that the future of Go is going to continue down
> this road,
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 22:56:32 +0100, you wrote:
>> He did explicitly said in the last paragraph that Go is not driven by
>> pools (aka surveys).
>
>Please re-read!
>
>The problem is that his post is quite contradictory. On the one hand he
>states that "Go is not and never has been a poll-driven
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:57 PM Martin Hanson
wrote:
>
> > He did explicitly said in the last paragraph that Go is not driven by
> > pools (aka surveys).
>
> Please re-read!
>
> The problem is that his post is quite contradictory. On the one hand he
> states that "Go is not and never has been a
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:46 PM Martin Hanson
wrote:
>
> > I don't know of a poll specifically about generics. But for the past
> > several years we've done a Go community survey, and every year there
> > is significant support for adding generics to the language.
>
> So Ian, what you're saying
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:09 PM Martin Hanson
wrote:
> If you on the other hand is pro-generics to Go, then of course that is
> your right.
>
Ian is on record, multiple times, as having argued in favor of generics in
Go long before its open source release and has since written many proposals
> Ultimately Go is a community and polls are unavoidable. And even in
> the benevolent-dictator model, the dictator is forced by the
> community if the pressure is high enough, this has happened in a lot
> of projects like Vim and Python. And in Vim some changes only
> happened after the adoption
@Ian, if you're succumbing to outside pressure, please don't.
If you on the other hand is pro-generics to Go, then of course that is
your right.
I for one doesn't hope that the future of Go is going to continue down
this road, with new proposals for change popping up on GitHub every
other day
Ultimately Go is a community and polls are unavoidable. And even in the
benevolent-dictator model, the dictator is forced by the community if the
pressure is high enough, this has happened in a lot of projects like Vim
and Python. And in Vim some changes only happened after the adoption of the
> He did explicitly said in the last paragraph that Go is not driven by
> pools (aka surveys).
Please re-read!
The problem is that his post is quite contradictory. On the one hand he
states that "Go is not and never has been a poll-driven language", yet
at the same time, "I think it's reasonable
He did explicitly said in the last paragraph that Go is not driven by pools
(aka surveys).
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 18:46 Martin Hanson,
wrote:
> > I don't know of a poll specifically about generics. But for the past
> > several years we've done a Go community survey, and every year there
> > is
> I don't know of a poll specifically about generics. But for the past
> several years we've done a Go community survey, and every year there
> is significant support for adding generics to the language.
So Ian, what you're saying is that for the future we can expect that
future development of Go
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:24 AM Markus Heukelom
wrote:
>
> Why not issue a poll on generics, was this ever done? (I could've missed it,
> I am only following Go ~2 years). While the community has a vote in
> accepting/rejecting the current generics proposal, the community was never
> (really)
> I have, plenty of times in the past, said myself that people who want
generics should just use Java or C++. I'm not proud of saying that. It was
a mistake.
What if you actually were right? Have you ever been looking at it through
"Clear is better than clever" prism? What if in 10 years
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:09 PM Anthony Martin wrote:
>
> 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts once said:
> > What isn't welcome is your attempt of alienating people with a different
> > viewpoint from yours and make them feel unwelcome. And if you continue to
> > insist on doing that, the community
On Tuesday, 22 December 2020 at 20:09:42 UTC+1 al...@pbrane.org wrote:
> Please don't minimize or silence the lived experience
> of people disproportionately affected by generics.
>
> We should protect non-generic function bodies.
>
> Concrete code matters.
>
Tasteless attempt at humour.
--
'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts once said:
> What isn't welcome is your attempt of alienating people with a different
> viewpoint from yours and make them feel unwelcome. And if you continue to
> insist on doing that, the community *will* ask you to leave.
Please don't minimize or silence the
You are very welcome to voice your opinion. Including the opinion that
generics should not be added to Go.
What you shouldn't do - and that's all I criticized - is to tell people who
disagree with you on that to go away.
I also think it's not wrong to point out that claiming the original
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:02 PM Axel Wagner
wrote:
> I feel well justified in calling this out as destructive behavior.
You've defined the problem much better than I could ever do. But this
one is not technical and off topic in this thread. Thanks for
considering.
--
You received this message
Your message is perfect example of why most of the ppl who have their own
different opinion and who have never been listened to or given that ability
will just shut up, and stay away.
вторник, 22 декабря 2020 г. в 14:01:53 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:09 AM
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:46 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:01 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
> wrote:
>
> > Go is an inclusive project and wants everyone to feel welcome -
> *obviously* that includes people who want generics in the language. Please
> read
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:01 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
wrote:
> Go is an inclusive project and wants everyone to feel welcome - *obviously*
> that includes people who want generics in the language. Please read - and
> keep to - the Go community Code of Conduct:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:09 AM Martin Hanson
wrote:
> It's a matter of understanding why generics was left out of Go from the
> start, like classes was left out of Go. If we start adding stuff that
> the original developers of Go left out by purpose
That is some serious revisionism of the
No polls. It's not a matter of majority rule!
It's a matter of understanding why generics was left out of Go from the
start, like classes was left out of Go. If we start adding stuff that
the original developers of Go left out by purpose, we're not
understanding the design choices that went into
On 21-12-2020, Martin Hanson wrote:
> I have just suggested the same thing @Space A, before I read your message and
> I agree fully!
>
> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/15292#issuecomment-749032046
>
> I strongly believe we need to fork Go if generics gets added and then let the
> toy people
Why not issue a poll on generics, was this ever done? (I could've missed
it, I am only following Go ~2 years). While the community has a vote in
accepting/rejecting the current generics proposal, the community was never
(really) asked if generics is desired in the first place and especially
A fork is a bad choice. Better to just not use them and/or prohibit them by
policy in your org. A fork will die a slow painful death - this is a personal
opinion only.
> On Dec 21, 2020, at 11:50 AM, L Godioleskky wrote:
>
> Hopefully, the Go team will encapsulate all generics in a separate
Hopefully, the Go team will encapsulate all generics in a separate
module(s), so that those of us who want to ignore them can easily do so
On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 7:26:02 AM UTC-5 Space A. wrote:
> Unfortunately it was expected that creators of the language will not
> resist forever
I have just suggested the same thing @Space A, before I read your message and I
agree fully!
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/15292#issuecomment-749032046
I strongly believe we need to fork Go if generics gets added and then let the
toy people have their new shiny things in Go while we
Although i am also against generics, as i didn't even know it existed
before i started to see people complaining that Go didn't have it, i don't
think it will be that bad. It probably won't be overused for the same
reason interface{} isn't overused, the cases where it really makes sense
and is
Not sure I agree with you.
Let's see others' thoughts on it.
On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 1:38:54 AM UTC+6 Martin Hanson wrote:
> I think people who want generics added to Go should go and program in Java
> or C++.
>
> Adding generics to Go will ruin the beautiful simplicity of the language
On 12/21/20 12:26 PM, Space A. wrote:
> Unfortunately it was expected that creators of the language will not resist
> forever being under the pressure of masses
Whilst I don't agree with the language of these mails.
I have worries and struggle to see much benefit also.
Mostly I feel the time
Unfortunately it was expected that creators of the language will not resist
forever being under the pressure of masses most which do not even code in
Go, or not use Go as the main language and just following patterns and
shitty idioms they took elsewhere. Generics are bullshit crap in its
87 matches
Mail list logo
