71–80 of 481 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not a typescript person, but to be fair to typescript, its type system is still much more expressive than Go’s, even with the generics addition
Typescript is stricter and safer while also being less obtrusive than Go
Their code is full of things like: type fileOps []any // []T where T is (string | int64) Go does not have neither generics nor union types. So people have to do this kind of thing :( I feel sorry for them. Reminds of Java 4 (15 years ago or something) where code was full of this crap: List /* */ values; Map /* */ map; Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type decl…
Their code is full of things like: type fileOps []any // []T where T is (string | int64) Go does not have neither generics nor union types. So people have to do this kind of thing :( I feel sorry for them. Reminds of Java 4 (15 years ago or something) where code was full of this crap: List /* */ values; Map /* */ map; Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type decl…
Fast-forwarding to today, could Co-pilot have saved them the trouble?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In semantic versioning, going from 1.X to 2.X is only indicated when there are incompatible API changes. Adding generics doesn’t break compatibility with preexisting Go code, so it’s unnecessary to increment the major version.
Sure, but semantic versioning really is the wrong kind of versioning to use for a language. The major version should represent major language changes, not whether its a breaking change or not, semantic versioning isn't somehow magically a "good" way to version. It's useful for libraries / dependencies where you are dealing with many different libraries and just want to know you can upgrade without having to deal with…
Why?
Old code still work and unless you are purposefully maintaining an old system you are expected to use the last version anyway. What does it actually change that generics were introduced in version 1.18 rather than 2.0? From now on, Go has generics. As there is no breaking change, it’s not like you had to keep using the previous version to opt out.
Their code is full of things like: type fileOps []any // []T where T is (string | int64) Go does not have neither generics nor union types. So people have to do this kind of thing :( I feel sorry for them. Reminds of Java 4 (15 years ago or something) where code was full of this crap: List /* */ values; Map /* */ map; Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type decl…
> Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type declarations once Java finally got generics! Fast-forwarding to today, could Co-pilot have saved them the trouble?
Their code is full of things like: type fileOps []any // []T where T is (string | int64) Go does not have neither generics nor union types. So people have to do this kind of thing :( I feel sorry for them. Reminds of Java 4 (15 years ago or something) where code was full of this crap: List /* */ values; Map /* */ map; Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type decl…
Their code is full of things like: type fileOps []any // []T where T is (string | int64) Go does not have neither generics nor union types. So people have to do this kind of thing :( I feel sorry for them. Reminds of Java 4 (15 years ago or something) where code was full of this crap: List /* */ values; Map /* */ map; Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type decl…
This is fantastic. It'll make Go feel much less weird. eg from the diff: []interface{}{1, 2.0, "hi"} -> []any{1, 2.0, "hi"} Now that Go is going to have generics, all we need is sugar syntax for early return on error -- like more modern languages such as Rust and Zig have -- and Go may finally be pleasant to program in!
I cannot wait for the Result monad. The state of error handling in Go at the moment is embarrassing at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot wait for the Result monad. The state of error handling in Go at the moment is embarrassing at best.
Emulating sum types in languages without pattern matching is extremely awkward, to the point of being almost useless. type Result[T] struct { ok: *T err: error } Great, so how do you work with it? * You can have a `ok()` getter that returns `*T`. Now you you need an `if x != nil` * `isOk()` + `isErr()` * `unwrap() T`, which panics on errors * `split() (*T, err)` that splits into separate values, especially awkward si…
Emphasis on eventually instead of at every single function call.
Their code is full of things like: type fileOps []any // []T where T is (string | int64) Go does not have neither generics nor union types. So people have to do this kind of thing :( I feel sorry for them. Reminds of Java 4 (15 years ago or something) where code was full of this crap: List /* */ values; Map /* */ map; Some devs spent a whole week doing nothing other than removing those commented out generic type decl…