Live data from Hacker News

Go: Support for Generic Methods

github.com

1–10 of 288 posts

Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods

#4
post #2

slowly 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.

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

#5

Earlier 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.

So which language had it right from the start? is there a language that has a very low rewrite status?

Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods

#6
post #2

slowly 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.

I don't think anyone admitted any wrong or had any big change in philosophy. It's always a good thing to learn something along the way. But the current message seems to be that this was the plan all along, and it just took some time to design properly.

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

#7

Earlier 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.

"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."

-- Greenspun's tenth rule

He had some lack of conviction to scope it so narrowly.

Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods

#8

Earlier 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.

I know Go is justly criticized for many of its design decisions, but it still feels well-designed and "small" to me in day to day usage when many other languages don't.

Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods

#9
post #5

Earlier 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?

I'd particularly like examples of statically typed languages that "got it right" (since I love me my types)

Re: Go: Support for Generic Methods

#10
post #2

slowly 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.

There’s a fine line between being willing to change your mind and getting the basics wrong. Go has repeatedly gotten the basics wrong.
Post reply on HN