|
|
|
|
|
by genbattle
5013 days ago
|
|
I think in real usage (in my experience), this is very rarely the case. The only thing Generics are really extremely useful for is writing data structures that you can re-use with multiple data types. Also, I tend to appreciate Go's approach of writing more code in these situations, because in general the code is still far more readable than a C++ Template (for example). The Go creators have not ruled out adding Generics, they are simply being very careful about how they implement it. I would rather have this situation than something like a generic Java/C#/C++ style generics implementation rammed in because it is demanded by people who have hardly touched the language (or refuse to touch it until said feature is added). |
|
When working in .NET on framework-y code I use generics with reflection a lot because it makes it easy to remove a whole swathe of repetitive code. Mapping from one object to another using a Mapper<TFrom, TTo> with generic constraints, reflection and some over-ridable conventions springs to mind.
Not an argument for adding generics in Go, or against Go itself as I haven't yet found the time to play with it. However I do think generics can be more useful than people give them credit for.