|
|
|
|
|
by ardit33
2187 days ago
|
|
I am not a GoLang programmer, but that just didn't look neither pretty or readable... Perhaps, perhaps, hard-core generics are not a great idea after all, and they should only be in the annotation level of the language (especially for container types, which is the only place where generics are truly valuable)... |
|
A lot of the information is already in the definitions, there's no reason to repeat it, but Go chose to do that.
and the example from referenced article is even more outrageous We have function types literally at the same exression, but Go requires to repeat it.