|
Hi. Sorry, I couldn't reply yesterday properly due to personal reasons, I am very sorry about that. It's not a generic comment, it directly reacted to the article. The article was about providing a speedup not because they innovated something new, but because they've finally fixed a wart which should never have been in the language in the first place. I've said it another comment but I'll directly include it here:
"I have picked 20 years specifically since it was around 2003-2005 when Java and C# got generics. Obviously, they were also more than 20 years late but I compared it to mainstream languages people are more likely to know about or more likely to compare it with."
Generics are a feature Go has lacked for a very long time, and I think it's a bit misleading to claim that including them is some revolutionary thing which the article suggests. ("There are many reasons to be excited about generics in Go" or "The future of Go generics is bright") Also, I don't see how it is insulting the language authors if I point out (what I think is) a bad design decision they made. They are not horrible human beings or anything for so, I am not attacking them. I'd like to disagree with the trolling and off-topic assessments. I would understand if it was a tangential comment about some other problems of Go (like nilchecking for example), but I replied directly to the point the article was addressing. I see the argument that it could potentially invite hostile behaviour, but I'd like to believe in the civility of the forum. Finally, to expand a bit on the "what features Go needs" question of GP, for example it doesn't support most unicode characters deliberately (only letters and digits), proper exceptions, unions, sum types, enums, and the language doesn't care about correctness at all, only about the "common use case" (see the nanotime/time.Time issue for example, they implemented it the worst possible way) |