Re:Go and Simplicity Debt Redux
by coldtea on Sunday June 18, 2017 @05:01PM
(#14582907)
>I would participate in an argument only for a language that I am invested in. When it comes to go, most people who argue about generics, do not write go and probably wouldn't touch it even if it had generics.
Citation needed.
>Also, an important issue with such arguments, is that generics is a feature, so obviously it is an easy side to choose for an argument. You can either have or don't have a feature. People will instinctively select the have option because common sense dictates that it is better to have something even if you don't use it. People want to quantify an argument and having is better than not having.
This non-argument could be applied against adding ANY feature at all.
The idea that there are more enlightened users who care about "language design" and the unwashed masses who want to add everything and the kitchen sink to Golang and spoil it does not hold water (Besides, even if it was true, people who care about language design do not particularly see 90% of Algol 68 + CSP as anything to write home about).
People dont ask for all kinds of BS to be added to Go -- the ask for certain things that are actual pain points.
And the list the 2016 Survey post gives is quite sensible (Generics, better error handling, better packaging, etc) and specifically applicable to Golang pain points.
Citation needed.
>Also, an important issue with such arguments, is that generics is a feature, so obviously it is an easy side to choose for an argument. You can either have or don't have a feature. People will instinctively select the have option because common sense dictates that it is better to have something even if you don't use it. People want to quantify an argument and having is better than not having.
This non-argument could be applied against adding ANY feature at all.
The idea that there are more enlightened users who care about "language design" and the unwashed masses who want to add everything and the kitchen sink to Golang and spoil it does not hold water (Besides, even if it was true, people who care about language design do not particularly see 90% of Algol 68 + CSP as anything to write home about).
People dont ask for all kinds of BS to be added to Go -- the ask for certain things that are actual pain points.
And the list the 2016 Survey post gives is quite sensible (Generics, better error handling, better packaging, etc) and specifically applicable to Golang pain points.