|
|
|
|
|
by rudolf0
3891 days ago
|
|
>Go is "simple", sure, but ends up being rather complicated as a result, with tons of the same code having to be written over and over for different types, and tons of typecasting between interface{} and real types, and so on. Nobody (as far as I can see) is asking for Haskell-style typeclasses or operator overloading or type traits or higher-kinded types or any of that. Exactly. We're not asking for much here, just the ability to do the most basic kind of type parameterization. The only benefit afforded by missing generics is simplicity in the compiler. It does nothing or worse than nothing when it comes to simplicity in actual Go code. |
|