|
|
|
|
|
by latronic_notron
2679 days ago
|
|
I'm familiar with that article, and it got me excited for a while, but it's about compiler implementation, and it doesn't really have much to do with the current discussion, other than rationalizing the opposition for the feature. About your other points: nope, generics wouldn't remove simplicity in the language itself. They would mostly legitimize with type-safety certain idioms that are already present in current Golang code. And the terrible error messages of C++ templates are not really a good example. There are much better languages now when it comes to generics. I suggest that maybe you try looking into other legitimate uses of generics? The Fibonacci-Tree<K,V> example you gave earlier is unrealistic, and the other example being thrown around here, STL, is too complex... There are lots of legitimate reasons for someone wanting generics in a language, and nobody is advocating for them out of bad faith, or wishing to kill a nice language with feature bloat :( |
|