|
|
|
|
|
by fixxer
4056 days ago
|
|
1, 2, and 4 are pretty strong arguments. I've written a handful of go generate utilities to do everything from CRUD boilerplate to produce Python clients. Generally, I have found the current approach simple enough and don't have any motivation to change. I would like to see more definition in terms of best practices as defined by the core authors (perhaps release a few more of those internal tools). They have done a little to try to coax the community into their way of thinking, but I think we need more. Coming from C/C++, your motives aren't unreasonable, but I also fear the innovation might encourage sprawl well beyond the original concept definition. That restraint is pretty common in the history of the language and a way of thinking that I like. As with so many that desire generics, maybe the solution is simpler: Go might not be the right language for you. |
|