News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Go Is Not Good (2014) by coldpie on Wednesday December 09, 2015 @11:18AM (#10704534)
> Now, implement a function 'average' that can work on any of these three types.

I'm not convinced this is such a large problem that its solution is worth the myriad downsides that operator overloading is chained to. There's lots of schoolbook examples like this, but I've almost never seen operator overloading used well in practice. There's a few examples, like boost shared pointers are somewhat easier to read, but they're few and far between

Re:Why Go Is Not Good (2014) by pcwalton on Wednesday December 09, 2015 @11:24AM (#10704582)
> There's lots of schoolbook examples like this, but I've almost never seen operator overloading used well in practice.

I do graphics programming and I literally rely on it all the time.

Re:Why Go Is Not Good (2014) by woah on Wednesday December 09, 2015 @12:15PM (#10705025)
As someone above was mentioning, I don't think that go was ever intended for heavy math programming. It's a great language for writing network applications that is more performant and deployable than scripting languages, yet easier to use than low level languages. Use rust or c.
Re:Why Go Is Not Good (2014) by kllrnohj on Wednesday December 09, 2015 @11:57AM (#10704882)
Please elaborate on the myriad of downsides that operator overloading is chained to. I am honestly not aware of any downsides that are unique to operator overloading

Hint: Things like "they can be abused" or "you can do crazy things like have + return a dot product" are not unique to operators. I can very easily define .clone() in Java to return a dot product as well, or have .equals() do in-place addition.