Go: Support for Generic Methods
github.com
Go: Support for Generic Methods
1–10 of 288 posts
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#2Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#3slowly implementing all the things they said we didn't need
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#4slowly implementing all the things they said we didn't need
It's not a bad thing to realize that one can be wrong and then strive for change.
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a bad thing to realize that one can be wrong and then strive for change.
Maybe, but personally I've become quite tired of programming languages "organically grown" as opposed to properly designed the first time. After a good decade of C then C++, I found ANSI CL (despite being a massive compromise and unfinished) much more coherent and complete than both.
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#6slowly implementing all the things they said we didn't need
It's not a bad thing to realize that one can be wrong and then strive for change.
Of course adding generics is not something that every language needs to do. Scripting languages like Ruby don't really need this style of generics. It doesn't fit the design of the language, and it's not even clear what that would look like in Ruby.
But static typing with generics does solve a recurring problem, and we've seen some real convergence towards type hints and type systems even in staunchly dynamic scripting languages. Modern Javascript is now mostly Typescript, and they've successfully retrofitted a very advanced type system in the last place I would have expected 20 years ago.
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a bad thing to realize that one can be wrong and then strive for change.
Maybe, but personally I've become quite tired of programming languages "organically grown" as opposed to properly designed the first time. After a good decade of C then C++, I found ANSI CL (despite being a massive compromise and unfinished) much more coherent and complete than both.
-- Greenspun's tenth rule
He had some lack of conviction to scope it so narrowly.
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a bad thing to realize that one can be wrong and then strive for change.
Maybe, but personally I've become quite tired of programming languages "organically grown" as opposed to properly designed the first time. After a good decade of C then C++, I found ANSI CL (despite being a massive compromise and unfinished) much more coherent and complete than both.
Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but personally I've become quite tired of programming languages "organically grown" as opposed to properly designed the first time. After a good decade of C then C++, I found ANSI CL (despite being a massive compromise and unfinished) much more coherent and complete than both.
So which language had it right from the start? is there a language that has a very low rewrite status?