|
|
|
|
|
by ca_parody
2159 days ago
|
|
To me, Go feels condescending to write without generics. I may just not groke the idioms - but putting users in a walled garden that the standard library has the privileged to escape from (i.e. (Map<k, v>)) just seems to go too far in not trusting the programmer. The fact that generics have taken so many years - to still be talking about what [<( to use is beyond me. There is a difference between becoming C++ and allowing programmers to make fundamental abstractions without interface{} hacks. |
|
All these things were already pointed out 10 years ago and were met by "you don't need that with Go", "Go back writing Java" sort of contempt, which gave the Go community a bad reputation.
Go could have been fixed 10 years ago if Rob Pike and co listened. They didn't want to because they thought they knew better than everybody else. ADA already fixed the genericity problem while keeping things readable with a limited form of generics as incomplete types.