Golang generics proposal has been accepted
1–10 of 176 posts
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#2I wonder if over time, Golang will pick up more type features like Java and other languages have.
The general consensus seems to be that powerful type systems are very effective.
Personally, the low footprint runtime and concurrency primitives are enough for me and I wouldn't mind the language becoming "less simple" if it helps the ecosystem.
Once generics are implemented, I can imagine people requesting for the next "missing" thing.
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#3As someone who hasn't followed the discussion all this time, is there an up to date example of what the generics syntax will look like?
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#4This will probably be downvoted, but I personally never felt a huge need for generics. C doesn't have them and is arguably the most successful language in history. Yes, they are convenient, but they also add a lot of complexity to the language and toolchain. I suspect that this proposal being accepted is largely due to the huge growth of the Go community - I bet the original team (in particular, I'm thinking of Rob Pike) are at best ambivalent about this proposal and were outvoted.
Personally, the proposal I was most excited about was to make ints be arbitrary precision by default. As someone who does a lot of math, this would have made Go much easier for me to use. Sadly, this proposal was scrapped a while back.
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#5This was to be expected. But I'm glad for Go.
In some years a language that interops with Go comes out, where all the Go types have a ?-suffix indicating they are nullable. The language will be mostly null-safe. Also it will sport sumtypes and pattern matching/ destructuring in switch statements.
It will be called: Gotlin.
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#6As someone who hasn't followed the discussion all this time, is there an up to date example of what the generics syntax will look like?
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#7[deleted]
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#8This will probably be downvoted, but I personally never felt a huge need for generics. C doesn't have them and is arguably the most successful language in history. Yes, they are convenient, but they also add a lot of complexity to the language and toolchain. I suspect that this proposal being accepted is largely due to the huge growth of the Go community - I bet the original team (in particular, I'm thinking of Rob P…
C may not have generic types, but much of the standard library does use generics, just through the unsafe mechanism of `void*`. Likewise, go already includes some generic code (the array type), it's just treated specially.
Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#9Re: Golang generics proposal has been accepted
#10This will probably be downvoted, but I personally never felt a huge need for generics. C doesn't have them and is arguably the most successful language in history. Yes, they are convenient, but they also add a lot of complexity to the language and toolchain. I suspect that this proposal being accepted is largely due to the huge growth of the Go community - I bet the original team (in particular, I'm thinking of Rob P…
> C doesn't have them and is arguably the most successful language in history.
I'm not sure "C didn't have it" is a good litmus test for determining the value of features... C is called a portable assembler for a reason.
> Yes, they are convenient, but they also add a lot of complexity to the language and toolchain.
Conversely, proponents of generics would argue that not having them creates complexity for software developers who have to come up with alternative design patterns where generics would be a better fit.
> Personally, the proposal I was most excited about was to make ints be arbitrary precision by default.
Why would you want that? C doesn't have it... ;)