Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Generics?

blog.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 261 posts

Re: Why Generics?

#81

Post by chc »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #52
elpakal wrote: post #28

Chiming in here as a Swift dev - I find its generics system incredibly helpful and end up writing something that uses generics about once a month. To those Go programmers who think they will never use them - it’s worth a little learning, and once you do you will find more ways to use them to make your code more applicable.

> To those Go programmers who think they will never use them - it’s worth a little learning, and once you do you will find more ways to use them to make your code more applicable. There was a story I came across once. It went something like this: The proponents of every gizmo think their gizmo is superior to the others, because it's got these useful features that the others lack, and isn't encumbered by the weird use…

I think you're talking about the Blub Paradox, by the guy who started this site.

Re: Why Generics?

#82

Post by mikeash »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #52
elpakal wrote: post #28

Chiming in here as a Swift dev - I find its generics system incredibly helpful and end up writing something that uses generics about once a month. To those Go programmers who think they will never use them - it’s worth a little learning, and once you do you will find more ways to use them to make your code more applicable.

> To those Go programmers who think they will never use them - it’s worth a little learning, and once you do you will find more ways to use them to make your code more applicable. There was a story I came across once. It went something like this: The proponents of every gizmo think their gizmo is superior to the others, because it's got these useful features that the others lack, and isn't encumbered by the weird use…

This is the Blub Paradox. http://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox

Re: Why Generics?

#83

Post by viraptor »

_ikke_ wrote: post #41
freetobesmart wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but what is the benefit? How does your code change. Generics are a tail abstraction. Its the last abstraction that you are able to make to your code to reduce boilerplate. This usually means that is the least useful and in generics specific case the boiler place it reduces is minimal. Its lack of impact is why I dont really care about the subject. Adding or removing generics to a project matters little. So why bother…

The benefit is that you can remove a lot of duplicate code that does exactly the same, except the type it operates on. The blogpost talks about the Reverse function. Especially when you need to make changes, (fix bugs, performance improvements, etc), if you have dedicated functions for these, it takes effort to keep them (plus tests) in sync. If you don't see any issue with this duplication, then I can see that gener…

There is research showing that number of bugs is a function of lines of code. As in, you can be overall better or worse with the implementation, but the more code you write, the more mistakes you'll make. Removing almost-duplicated code helps with this metric, especially when you operate on data structures ripe for off-by-one errors.

Re: Why Generics?

#84

Post by icholy »

fabiensanglard wrote: post #60

I hope this doesn't happen. I love golang because it is simple and easy to read. Both will go away when generic programmer start to write unreadable meta-programming class which "you don't need to understand, just use them". I admire golang devs for being opinionated and stand up for the core lines of their language so far. I see generic as renouncing these principles.

What are you on about? The current draft doesn't enable any type of meta-programming.

Re: Why Generics?

#85

Post by weberc2 »

iainmerrick wrote: post #74

Maybe this is unfair, but it’d be great if the Go devs could just say “generics will work similarly to [C# / Java / Swift / D / whatever], except that we’ll address [problems] with [adjustments]”. Rather than going through this whole rigmarole of resisting adding generics too early because all existing implementations are bad, then slowly reinventing the wheel from scratch, then finally ending up with something prett…

It seems like you’re objecting to the messaging (not referencing an existing language, which doesn’t work for people not familiar with the implementation of that language) and also that, at its inception, Go didn’t pick (randomly?) a language off of which to model its generic implementation. Am I misreading?

Re: Why Generics?

#86

Post by iainmerrick »

bbatha wrote: post #45
dimgl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to find one practical application for generics in the apps I've built in Go.

If the std lib had functions that mapped to the "Slice Tricks"[0], like virtually every other language, I'd use them constantly. Sure I wouldn't write generic functions all that much, but calling generic code I would do every day and it would be a serious ergonomic, correctness, and readability improvement to have named functions for very common patterns like the slice tricks. 0: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/Sli…

Right, I see this as the biggest benefit.

Go already has generic built-in maps, channels and slices, so clearly those generic types are useful.

If what I actually want is a multiset, say, it would be great to have a standard library class that looks and behaves similarly to map except it’s a multiset, rather than just having to use map and do all the little 1- and 2-line boilerplate tricks for the multiset operations. I can write shorter code that more clearly expresses my intentions, and reduce the risk of stupid little bugs in the boilerplate.

Re: Why Generics?

#87

Post by weberc2 »

takeda wrote: post #71
tylerflick wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. If I really need generics I'll use a different language.

This reminds me the discussion about first version of iPhone how so many people were advocating why adding copy&paste functionality was a bad idea.

Agreed. There are good objections to generics; this is not one of them.

EDIT: If any Apple employees are reading this, I really wish autocorrect would stop confusing generics and generics. :)

Re: Why Generics?

#88

Post by jknoepfler »

The decision to overload parentheses to express generic type is the only part of this spec I find nauseating. It doesn't scan well, and doesn't have a precedent in any major generic implementation I'm aware of. <, [, @-annotation... I don't care. Just don't mush it into the function declaration with the same syntax that encloses parameter.

Re: Why Generics?

#89

Post by eshyong »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #59
YawningAngel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubernetes is a transpiled Java project, so yeah, Java-like features would definitely make it easier :P I think idiomatic golang works pretty well without generics in most cases, the big problem for me is that functional programming is essentially impossible without them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubernetes says original Kubernetes was all C++.

If you read the article more closely, it says that Borg was written in C++. If you watch the video linked by @tuvan below, you'll hear the speaker (who is a contributor) mention that the original authors of Kubernetes wrote the first version in Java, which was rewritten in Go.

Re: Why Generics?

#90

Post by weberc2 »

meddlepal wrote: post #79
tylerflick wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. If I really need generics I'll use a different language.

That's great if you get to pick the language you use for every project. Not all of us get that luxury.

And also only works if your project requirements are entirely foreseeable from day 0.
Post reply on HN