171–180 of 670 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would start using Go in my projects if it introduces generics. It's a show stopper for me.
The question is _why_ do you need generics, for what use case(s), etc? Saying “I need generics otherwise I won’t use Go” is exactly the type of feedback they don’t want. It seems like you’d have valuable feedback given that it’s a “showstopper” for you.
Why do we need anything beyond assembler?
My main wish: Please don't refuse to compile just because there are unused imports. Please do warn, and loudly say it's NON-CONFORMANT or whatever will embarass me enough from sharing my piece of Go code with someone else.. but.. can I please just run my code, in private, when experimenting?
Just use an editor that has goimports hooked up to run on save.
Working with batch processing I'm often changing my maps to lists or hashes multiple times during discovery. Go makes me rewrite all my code each time I change the variable type.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> overt dismissal, with a heavy moralizing tone that you should feel bad for even asking about the issue The attitude of Go community cannot be separated from the patronizing tone of Go maintainers. In fact it stems directly from the people @ Google working on Go. All the bullshit "you don't need that with go"™ comes directly from Pike,Cox and co. It's fine to be opinionated, but just admit these are opinions instead…
I'm still sitting here shocked that a language where "err" (and the keywords that check around it) are used an order of magnitude more frequently than all other syntax in that language, has achieved this much popularity: https://anvaka.github.io/common-words/#?lang=go
My main wish: Please don't refuse to compile just because there are unused imports. Please do warn, and loudly say it's NON-CONFORMANT or whatever will embarass me enough from sharing my piece of Go code with someone else.. but.. can I please just run my code, in private, when experimenting?
there is the godep tool that addresses the issue https://github.com/tools/godep > godep helps build packages reproducibly by fixing their dependencies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java has "had" anonymous functions for ages with anonymous inner classes, they just sucked as an implementation.
Absolutely correct. Lambdas are just shorthand for anonymous inner classes which implement an interface with only one method -- aka single abstract method (SAM) types. For instance, you have two functions. One takes `Function ` and the other takes `UnaryOperator `. Giving the "same" lambda to both functions will result in two anonymous inner types, one implementing both interfaces.
But, I don't know of one, and maybe that's because the Go team is right, some tradeoffs need to be made, and they did, and so Go is what it is. You can't add all the other great features you want and eat the Go cake too.
Disclaimer: I'm no language design expert. Just thinking this from the fact that I've yet to hear of such a language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Copying my reply from Reddit.) >If you finally have the opportunity to break backwards-compatibility, just do it. I think Russ explained pretty clearly why this is a bad idea. Remember Python 3? Angular 2? We don't want that to happen with Go 2.0. >Additionally, I'm of the opinion that more projects should adopt faster release cycles. I am of the opposite opinion. In fact, I consider quick releases to be harmful. Re…
I think Python was too ingrained to pull a "Python 3"; Go is newer, and this could be more like a "Swift 3". Break early and then stabilize for a long time; just make sure everybody knows the plan.
Which emphasises even more the fact that large private codebases really dislike breaking changes.
My main wish: Please don't refuse to compile just because there are unused imports. Please do warn, and loudly say it's NON-CONFORMANT or whatever will embarass me enough from sharing my piece of Go code with someone else.. but.. can I please just run my code, in private, when experimenting?
I like that Go don't allows unused import and variables. If you're working with inexperienced programmers (and some experienced but bad programmers), you should be certain that they WILL let that code garbage there if the compiler allow it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does an ORM need generics? I ask because I've built something very like an ORM in Go and I didn't have any problem without generics. ADTs on the other hand...
In my specific case it was the fact that i could not have one insert function or one update function. I would need one for each and every struct(table). These days there is a tool that can generate all those struct methods: https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler So from the ORM perspective we (as the community) have worked around it.
Now Repository and for us around 200,000 lines of code are gone and only one narrow set of tests to execute.