Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

Of course you are right Ian, there is nothing inherently wrong with experience reports. That's never what I meant to say and if that's how it came off I am sorry. It has been bugging me a little though that pre GopherCon it was "proposal or nothing" and post GopherCon it is "experience reports or

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > Sure, I am a bit short in this but again my opinion is that experience > reports wrt generics will only emphasize what is already known. That may in > itself be a metric and of value. That may well happen and you

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

ons 23 aug. 2017 kl 08:37 skrev Florin Pățan : > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:45:57 AM UTC+1, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > I may suffer from a "fundamental lack of understanding" about many > things but there isn't much to misunderstand in Russ blog post. I have also >

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:45:57 AM UTC+1, Henrik Johansson wrote: > I may suffer from a "fundamental lack of understanding" about many things but > there isn't much to misunderstand in Russ blog post. I have also seen the > talk. I simply disagree wrt generics. I appreciate that he has

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 3:24:26 AM UTC+1, Linker Lin wrote: > Hi,All! >     We must remember the tragedy of python 3.x . We should not separate the > Go into 2 versions. > If we launch Go 2 whatever the situation is, we must drop Go 1 immediately. > That will not happen. Please read

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

I may suffer from a "fundamental lack of understanding" about many things but there isn't much to misunderstand in Russ blog post. I have also seen the talk. I simply disagree wrt generics. I appreciate that he has thought a lot about it and needs more feedback to feel it worth continuing. I

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

Hi,All! We must remember the tragedy of python 3.x . We should not separate the Go into 2 versions. If we launch Go 2 whatever the situation is, we must drop Go 1 immediately. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:12 AM, sfrancia via golang-nuts < golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > As one of the few

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

And I forgot to mention a key point: There must be a separation of problems and solutions. It is critical as the problems are personally experienced out of necessity. Solutions, alternatively, need to remain independent of any individual so they can be evaluated objectively. We can and

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

As one of the few people who participates in the proposal review meeting I thought I'd shed some light on this. Go is intentionally simple. A lot of work has gone into the small balanced set of features. In fact prior to 1.0 a good number of features were removed as they weren't needed. The

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

You are right that there is a benefit analysis to be made. I just think the problems are more known than you do. On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 12:08 Egon wrote: > On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 12:49:14 UTC+3, Henrik Johansson wrote: > >> The siphoning and "talking to other language

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 12:49:14 UTC+3, Henrik Johansson wrote: > The siphoning and "talking to other language designers" is of course > related and I am sure that it happens. The community of compiler experts > seems not huge. I am aware of Ian's attempts to draft some proposals and >

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

The siphoning and "talking to other language designers" is of course related and I am sure that it happens. The community of compiler experts seems not huge. I am aware of Ian's attempts to draft some proposals and descriptions and that's what I am talking about. Experience reports will boil down

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 10:56:52 UTC+3, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > I am sorry but you are missing the point. I think there already is a lot > of _experience_ that doesn't need reiterating. > > My obsolete C++ knowledge is not enough to do a proper comparison but > there are numerous experts

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: > I am sorry but you are missing the point. I think there already is a lot > of _experience_ that doesn't need reiterating. > This is a fundamentally flawed argument. By that logic, every language should be identical

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

I am sorry but you are missing the point. I think there already is a lot of _experience_ that doesn't need reiterating. My obsolete C++ knowledge is not enough to do a proper comparison but there are numerous experts available inside the core team as well as outside. Why do you insist on

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 09:12:45 UTC+3, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > I am sorry Dave but you can ignore the needs of the many few as much as > you want but the tiny things won't go away. > > There probably won't be any _written_ experience reports for most of the > little things. The things

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

I am sorry Dave but you can ignore the needs of the many few as much as you want but the tiny things won't go away. There probably won't be any _written_ experience reports for most of the little things. The things that people live through and sometimes just have the time to email the list about

[go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

I'd like to echo Egon's point. We were both in the audience for Russ's announcement (although the video and the text are faithful reproductions) and Russ clearly asked for examples where "Go fails to scale" as starting points for a future version of Go. Starting from "this is a neat feature

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Henrik Johansson wrote: > There are most likely other things that are of similar status. The > context/value/bag thing seems like such thing to be more concrete. With a > stronger type system it could be much less obscure (not too much on my

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

Experience reports are very valuable but there are many things that are hardly possible to formulate as "something that hurt and needs to be fixed". For example the dreaded generics, it doesn't hurt much but I think that, for me, it is more that I am so happy with Go in general that I sort of

[go-nuts] Re: Gathering Ideas for Go 2.

I must add these here: 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zbh_vmAKvk 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpHggcP-L5M 3. https://blog.golang.org/toward-go2 Core team is asking for "Experience Reports"... which are not the same as "Feature Proposals". Many of the proposals I've noticed come