I believe your impression of the Go team's position has been corrupted (likely unintentionally) by intermediaries.

As other respondents to the GP comment show, it's not at all hard to come up with that ostensibly elusive picture if you're attending to it. So I suppose the obvious takeaway is that they're still not really attending to it. Which is fine, Go clearly has its niche and its fans, and people who don't want a pretty good Blub have other options.

Finer resolution would be if fusiongyro had characterized the golang team as saying "fuck off developers who want generics," which wouldn't have been as polite as the phrase "I don't have in my mind a clear picture of the detailed, concrete problems that Go users need generics to solve," but whose semantics are otherwise equivalent.

He's explicitly rude. Sets up a strawman argument with the developer who can't imagine programming without generics. Mocks the people who want generics. Gasps in faux disbelief that it could be solved by types.

And then, when he goes in for the kill, to show once and for all that generics are pointless garbage:

He attacks type hierarchies and inheritance... completely missing the point by conflating parametric polymorphism and subtype polymorphism.

I think "Fuck generics" does a decent job of summarazing the rudeness, misinformation and ill-thought out arguments that the article contains about generics.

If you think you know how I ought to spend my time, come over and mow my lawn while I expound on the problems of dev entitlement culture.

I'm fine with RSC, Commander Pike, and those other benevolent dictators continuing to make much better decisions that I certainly ever would and more importantly to be super careful with what they add to the language. I write Swift, JS, objC, and Go. Go is the preferred language because it's simple and I have the entire SDK in my head.

I use Go a lot. I can't say i've ever run into not having generics being a huge deal.

Let's face it, for most programmers out there, generics is for type safe collections. If slices and maps weren't built into Go then i'd prolly have moved to something else.

That said i'd like to see more built in data structures

Actually you very much can. It's the perfect word to describe certain attitudes, even if the person didn't use the word. It just translates to "who cares", "we don't need no stinking Generics", etc.

It can also convey many other things: http://reallifeglobal.com/how-use-word-fuck/

I suppose the argument I'm making does indeed depend on the premise that essential semantics of "fuck" can be conveyed in other ways. If you like, we could explore this by example.

And that's just in your first sentence.

My impression has always been that the Go core team is very open to the possible addition of generics, but also very wary of the very real downsides that generics have. Nothing I've ever seen from Rob or other core team members contradicts that. I'm open to citations if you can give any.

In contrast, a lot of Go users and proponents seem to be vehemently against generics, for wildly differing reasons. Some seem to be against them just for the lulz, others for crazy conspiracy theory or obscure philosophical reasons.

Me, I miss generics sometimes, but not enough to get riled up about it. I hope the Go folks come up with a clean, simple, and efficient way to get them, but until then I'm happy with the features Go has.

Yeah, god forbid someone is not absolute in their statements, but gives the benefit of the doubt. I'd say it only counts as "weasel" word when you don't say what you mean to say or want to hide your true intention/reality. But, for all the "maybe" etc, the parent made clear what he thinks: that the Go team doesn't care about Generics. He's not going two ways about it, for this to qualify as "weasel" wording.

>My impression has always been that the Go core team is very open to the possible addition of generics, but also very wary of the very real downsides that generics have.

Ten years on, and just some a handful of posts and "proposals" (not bigger than 1000-2000 words) written, for something that should have been there for the start (and for other languages with even less resources, like Julia, Nim, Rust, Crystal, Haxe, etc, has been), does not look like "very open".

I'd get the "We have a certain philosophy about Go, with which Generics don't match". Or "we don't like them, deal with it". But this back and forth, and ifs and buts ad inifinutum borders on the passive-aggresive treatment of the issue.

The "very real downsides" are the same old engineering tradeoffs every language had to make. "We'll only add them when we can have our cake and eat it too" is a weasel approach.

>Nothing I've ever seen from Rob or other core team members contradicts that. I'm open to citations if you can give any.

If by citations you mean "all talk but no walk" -- and even the talk being always hesitant and amounting to "we'll see", "if there is some magic way" (and the perennial "we're always open to it"), then yes, that has been a constant for a decade.

Now, I've just written ~3-5K lines of Go, and my company has just a few K or 10K lines of Go in production (mostly a C shop). But while I like a lot (static compilation for easy deployment, concurrency, standard library, go fmt, etc), one of the things that stops me using it more is the Generics situation.

For code generation you can do what Java does and erase generics (i.e. ignore them), in which case it will be no slower than code generation for manually erased code, which is what programmers have to write now. For good run-time performance you'd want to do specialisation, which may take longer but not much longer if the compiler is clever enough not to recompile the same method many times. C# does that and its implementation is actually fast enough for a JIT, let alone ahead of time compilation.

If I am debugging some C++, and I find myself looking at templated function, then I can't easily see what types the template parameters are. Also it becomes hard to navigate to method calls etc.

C++ is a particularly bad example, because template metaprogramming is essentially typeless. But any form of polymorphism introduces these problems to some extent.

To be fair, that includes the run-time polymorphism already available in Go. Thus if generics allow us to replace some `interface{}` hacks with properly typed middle-men (even if they compile down to `interface{}`) then that would be genuine benefit.

More often I am navigating through source code comparing it to logs, stack traces and other evidence that I can grab of what went wrong in production.

The source-level is important, because although I said "debugging" in my comment, what that very often comes to is first figuring out the intent of some other engineers from the thing they wrote -- and what they wrote is the source code, not the program state.

That sure is a concern when just importing fmt increases your binary size from 900k to 1.6M…

If you scroll to the bottom, you can see 4 large proposals written by Ian over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_(programming_language)#...

Eiffel is a very powerfull language with good tooling, just failed adoption, because licenses were too expensive and software industry still has issues valuing quality.

There is also an interesting anecdote about use of Eiffel in the book, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-Oriented_Software_Const...

That section shows the the 1st edition of the book did use Eiffel (as I said above).

So combining the easiness of interactive development with performance when it was time to ship the product.

It was also available before Java was a thing.

This is what I always kind of missed with Java and .NET, the previous generation of languages (Eiffel, Modula-3, Oberon(-2)) all had a mix of interactive development and AOT compilation for shipping release builds.

The Eiffel compiler required four distinct sequential processes (note: not phases. I really mean that four programs needed to be run in sequence, and each of these four programs implemented who knows how many passes). Eiffel generated C++, huge executables, was incredibly slow (even with contract stuff turned off).

It was very hard to debug, with gdb routinely giving up on the complex .o generated. It was a very verbose language that implemented all known features under the sun, a bit like Ada and Scala.

Eiffel didn't take off for some very solid reasons.

This was not an inherent problem of the language, but one of the implementation.

I know this because I wrote a compiler for an Eiffel dialect for my Ph.D. thesis and there have been other Eiffel compilers without these shortcomings.

Also, EiffelStudio – which seems to be what you are talking about – generated C code, not C++ and had the option to generate an intermediate representation instead that could be mixed with compiled code.

> It was a very verbose language that implemented all known features under the sun, a bit like Ada and Scala.

It was actually pretty minimalist, not at all like Ada or Scala.

Code was verbose because (1) programmers were encouraged to annotate methods with contracts and (2) exactly because it was minimalist and didn't have a lot of alternative ways of expressing the same functionality.

Edit: There are two hard parts about writing an Eiffel compiler.

1. Getting the semantics of feature renaming during inheritance right. If you aren't careful, it's easy to introduce errors during this step.

2. Doing separate compilation for mutually dependent classes. This is where much of the complexity of the EiffelStudio compiler comes from. Java solved the problem by simply not allowing separate compilation in those cases. If class A has a member of type B and B has a member of type A, they need to be compiled together.

Everything else that's involved in writing an Eiffel compiler does not require more than than what you learn in your typical compiler course. (Though, obviously, experience will get you better results.)

I think that must be what I was referring to by my mention about melting or freezing in a nearby comment. Didn't remember the technical details. Interesting feature. Wonder if other languages have something like that.

(Edit: Reading over it again, I realize that this may be read as criticism. To clarify, while I disagree with Meyer on some things, this isn't about disagreement. He is a teacher at heart – in fact, a very good teacher – and you can see some of his habits for keeping students engaged sometimes carry over into his writing.)

You don't see this approach really anymore, because these days it's so cheap to just generated unoptimized native code if compilation speed is an issue.

Obviously, if you have a JIT-compiler, then something similar happens internally in that some methods will be compiled, while others will be left in IR form (and sometimes, methods will even revert to using their IR). This was technology from back when CPU speed was still expressed in MHz.

OCaml had and still has both a bytecode and a native code format (for similar reason), but they cannot be mixed. OCaml's bytecode still sees use for (1) the bootstrap process, which allows you to build OCaml from scratch, (2) to run OCaml code on oddball architectures that the native compiler doesn't support, (3) to run code in the timetraveling debugger, and (4) when you need compact rather than fast executables.

OCaml's bytecode interpreter makes use of the fact that OCaml is statically typed and therefore doesn't incur nearly as much of a performance penalty as bytecode interpreters for dynamically typed languages.

[1] https://www.eiffel.org/doc/eiffelstudio/Melting%20Ice%20Tech...

>Obviously, if you have a JIT-compiler, then something similar happens internally in that some methods will be compiled, while others will be left in IR form (and sometimes, methods will even revert to using their IR).

I was going to say (in my parent comment to which you replied) that maybe that Eiffel's Melting Ice tech is something like Java JIT tech, but wasn't sure if they were the same thing.

The others already replied why.

Why on earth would one need to use gdb, given the nice graphical debugger of EiffelStudio?

Also it was way faster than code produced by Java, which I remind only got a JIT with version 1.3 and to this day only third party commercial JDKs do offer support for AOT to native code.

Java is also quite verbose. Verbose languages are quite good for large scale development.

On real life the majority of code is read not written, so I rather have it verbose and comprehensible than trying to make sense of a line full of hieroglyphs.

(Haven't worked much on Java recently, but did use it a fair amount some years ago.)

Isn't Java roughly equally verbose as Eiffel?

>that implemented all known features under the sun

At least based on looking at the Wikipedia article for Eiffel, it does not seem to have implemented functional programming, unless the article is out-of-date, or unless the agent mechanism supports FP somehow (not sure about that last bit).

That sounds like unrelated to the semantics of the language.

I seem to remember that there was some intermediate form of language translation too - something called melting or freezing or some such (might have been two different things). This was for EiffelStudio, probably, not generic Eiffel stuff.

>This is what I always kind of missed with Java and .NET, the previous generation of languages (Eiffel, Modula-3, Oberon(-2)) all had a mix of interactive development and AOT compilation for shipping release builds.

Interesting. Didn't know that that generation had both. As an aside, I had read a good description about Modula-2 (not -3) in a BYTE article (IIRC, years ago), and it seemed to me at the time that it was a good language. Having had a good amount of Pascal background before doing a lot of C, I was interested to try out Modula-2, but probably didn't have access to any compiler for it at the time. Later I read that Delphi's feature of units for modularity may have been inspired by Modula-2's modules, along with the concept of separate compilation.

The OOP features in Turbo Pascal are based on Object Pascal, which was designed at Apple for their Lisa and Mac OS systems programing language, with input from Niklaus Wirth.

Turbo Pascal was the reason why most PC developers never had too much love for Modula-2, because by Turbo Pascal 4.0 we had all the goodies from Modula-2 with case insensitive keywords.

Also, the compilers were more expensive than Turbo Pascal ones.

Incidentally Martin Odersky was the author of Turbo Modula-2, the short lived Modula-2 compiler sold by Borland.

I usually thank my technical school for having us go through Turbo Basic and Turbo Pascal before getting into Turbo C.

We were using Turbo Pascal 5.5 (I already knew 3.0 and 4.0) and 6.0 was still hot out of Borland's factory, which is why I've always been a fan of strong typed systems programming.

Turbo Pascal was the Pascal I'd used too, for a good while. Loved that environment. Really fast dev time and a fun language to work in.

In the end, Eiffel stuck with covariance and a type system that is technically unsound, because the simplicity of the type system outweighed any hypothetical gains from making it fully sound.

Practical problems with Eiffel's generics arise mostly from the fact that, like Java, constrained genericity inherently relies on nominal subtyping, which makes it less expressive than it could be.

[1] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall98/cs441/ma...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_programming#Genericity...

I may not be able to throw more light on it than that, sorry, since I'm not an expert on these areas, just interested.

C# isn't mentioned in any of the previous proposals, only Java, C++ and C.

Do you need a full-on JIT, or just a runtime? [1]

[0]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-g...

[1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-g...

The AS/400 uses a kernel level JIT, binaries are only JITted at installation time or explicitly via the command line.

The Lisp environments also only used JIT once.

Some implementations of Oberon would use bytecode instead of native code and JIT on module load.

There are many other examples.

  * type-safe containers (linked lists, trees, etc.)
  * higher order functions (map, reduce, filter, etc.)
  * database adapters (i.e. something like `sql.NullColumn<T>` instead of half a dozen variations on `sql.NullWhatever`)
  * 99% of functions that accept or return `interface{}`

For loops do not get the job done easily enough. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to do contortions in order to count backwards inclusive down to zero with an unsigned int. With a proper iterator API, it's trivial.

Furthermore, for loops are a pain to optimize. They encourage use of indices everywhere, which results in heroic efforts needed to eliminate bounds checks, effort that is largely unnecessary with higher level iterators. Detecting the loop trip count is a pain, because the loop test is reevaluated over and over, and the syntax encourages complicated loop tests (for example, fetching the length of a vector over and over instead of caching it). For loop trip count detection is one of the major reasons why signed overflow is undefined in C, and it's a completely self-inflicted wound.

I'm generally of the opinion nowadays that adding a C-style for loop to a language is a design mistake.

There was a nice paper at this years POPL which (in my opinion) allows you to substantiate this claim.

The paper is "Stream Fusion to Completeness", by Oleg Kiselyov, Aggelos Biboudis, Nick Palladinos, and Yannis Smaragdakis. The actual question in the paper is how to compile away stream operations to imperative programs using for/while loops and temporary variables. On the other hand, if we look at the output of the compiler we can see how complex it is to express natural stream programs using only for/while loops.

For instance, even very simple combinations of map/fold/filter create while loops and make it difficult to detect the loop trip count afterwards (in fact, you need an analysis just to detect that the loop terminates). If you combine several such streams with zip, the resulting code makes a nice entry for obfuscated code contests. Finally, if you use flatMap the resulting control flow doesn't fit into a for/while loop at all...

So for/while loops are not simpler than stream processing primitives and unless you explicitly introduce temporaries (i.e., inline the definition of map/fold/etc.) you quickly end up with very complicated control flow.

If you want to show something else is easier to use, you'd have to do a user study, and even that's not going to be universally applicable since it depends on the previous experiences of the user population being tested. It's why these things tends to be debated as a matter of taste.

They all show that the natural expression is through declarative programming and that for loop are never what comes naturally.

Regardless, these are simply cases of people writing bad code, and nobody is claiming map/reduce/filter is a panacea for bad code.

Functional composition/chaining works best with small, well-named single purpose functions that compose/chain together into more complex functionality (with appropriate names at every non-trivial level of chaining/composition). You can't easily compose/chain imperative loops this way (at least not without wrapping them in functions that take data, and returns transformed data, by which point you might as well use map/reduce/filter to transform the data to begin with to get rid of the impedance mismatch).

It's not incomprehensible, it's just phrased a different way from what you're used to.

A lot of programming boils down to mutating local or global state, by executing lines of code -- each of which mutating the contents of some variable somewhere -- in order, one at a time. But this is just one style of programming, and is not the only one. When using map, filter, reduce etc. we, instead, construct a path through which data flows, where each line modifies some aspect of the data, as it flows through the path. This is essentially what Functional Reactive Programming is, although you can get the same effect using a pure language and function composition.

What would be incomprehensible?

As opposed to code that just uses chained map, reduce etc as opposed to nested or sequential for loops.

One is a difference is skill, clarity etc, the other is a difference in style (imperative vs fp).

There is a germ of truth here - sometimes list comprehensions make code harder to understand than if you just wrote an if statement or a loop - but you've overgeneralized. I don't think anyone on the core Go team seriously thinks that map and reduce are bad ideas when Google relies so heavily on MapReduce (and its successors).

Python's comprehensions are among the most powerful, easy to use, concise capabilities of any language I've used. You can address the abuse issue with coding guidelines: no more than 2 deep. Done.

How easily are they abused?

Because it's the opinion of the programming community, including the brightest programmers out there, that FP, and map, reduce and filter are totally fine and dandy.

> Using `interface{}` to temporarily escape the type system

tbh if you program Go correctly, you use interface{} pretty rarely.

It's a bit like saying "if you program C correctly, you use (void *) pretty rarely.". that's not the case, Go maintainers themselves keep on adding API with interface {} everywhere. Are you saying they are not programming Go correctly?

Rust has generics and traits/typeclasses, and the result is my Rust code uses those features extensively and the presence of those features greatly influences the designs. Similarly, when I write Java, I design with inheritance in mind. I would have trouble showing real world use cases for inheritance in my Rust code, because Rust doesn't have inheritance and so the designs don't use inheritance-based patterns.

Essentially, how does one provide real world evidence for the utility of something that's only hypothetical? You can't write working programs in hypothetical Go 2-with-generics, so examples are always going to be hypothetical or drawn from other languages where those tools do exist.

Users who have heavy need for genetics have already moved away from Go.

The question is, do you want to write type safe code? which is memory safe? which has bound-checked array? or not? Assembly makes all that stuff unnecessary as well. This is not a good argument, especially when Go std lib is getting all these type unsafe API using interface {} everywhere. That is precisely what generics are for, to allow writing parametric functions (sort) or type safe containers instead of sync.Map like in the std lib.

If you care about type safety and code re-use then generic programming is a necessity. What do you think append, copy or delete are? these are generic functions. All people are asking is the ability to define their own in a type safe fashion.

Are these use cases Russ Cox don't know they exist?

The argument about assembly is a red herring. Let's compare:

1) In addition to writing your business functions, learn these additional control structures to obtain safety

2) When writing your business functions, also use these well reviewed functions that enforce type and memory safety when moving code across interfaces.

3) Port all of your code to assembly, write you own memory safety control structures from scratch.

You see the difference? The choice in your mind between "add control structures to the language" and "do everything painstakingly by hand" but we are advocating a third option, which is: use well reviewed libraries written with only the basic control structures.

The reason I am advocating that is the more control structures you have the harder it is to analyze code. You end up slowly moving your codebase to a point where only people with deep deep knowledge of an advanced programming language can read it.

I think culturally, in 2017, programmers underestimamte how much can be done with just functions and literals and well written helpers.

The reason for that is we are rewarded (psychologically and professionally) for learning new control structures, but not as often for writing better code using the beginner structures.

They sure are useful to readability and maintainability.

[0] which can obviously be used to replace looping constructs anyway

On the latter part I'm fairly cynical these days, since I'm presently on a team where the lead embraced a Scala-DSL heavy, functional design and the net result has been a total loss of project velocity because when we need to prototype a new requirement, the push back has been paraphrasing "oh, could you not do that in <core product> and handle it somewhere else?" - so we end up with a bunch of shell scripts cobbled together to do so.

Of course nothing can't be done without them. With or without generics or inheritance the language is still Turing complete.

It doesn't seem to me that there's a shortage of people pointing out real-world use cases at all, and I'm looking from the outside in.

basically it goes like: > If google isn't screaming about it, it's not important. > If google has a workaround, then it's fixed.

Choosing is hard, and while they could improve I think the Go maintners have done a pretty good job, and are willing to admit mistakes.

Admitting a mistake on "generics" would probably go a long way towards credibility for the team.

No matter how many excellent decisions they've made that have delicately balanced opinions and tradeoffs, this one hasn't gone over well, and it's very widely known.

In Rust, this was handled the right way. The Result type forces you to at least actively dispose of the error.

In Go, it's just way too easy to leave an error unhandled.

Sort of: by default, an unused value of the `Result` type produces a compiler warning. Like all warnings in Rust, this category of warnings can be promoted to a hard error for all users with a single line of code. And unlike other languages where compiler warnings are uniformly ignored, there is a strong culture in Rust of making sure that code compiles warning-free (largely due to the fact that the compiler is rather selective about what to issue warnings about, to help avoid useless false positives and warning spew (there is a separate project, called "clippy", for issuing more extensive warnings)).

In both cases I have to either write a handler immediately after the call, or I'm going to fail and toss it back up to whoever called me.

Errors-should-be-values has always seemed like a bizarre statement to me. Like, fine, but they're still errors - their core feature will be that I stop what I want to do and handle them. And in that regard I much prefer exceptions (at least Python style exceptions) because most of the time I just want to throw the relevant context information up to some level of code which knows enough to make a decision on handling them. The thing I really want is an easy way to know all the ways something can fail, and what information I'm likely to get from that, so I can figure out how I want to handle them.

The main difference as I see it is that in Rust, you can't get the success value if there's an error, so you're forced by the compiler to handle any error if there is one. With tuples, you're free to just look at one element regardless of the value of the other.

Look, even allowing type aliases to become part of an interface declaration would be a HUGE win. You can't currently write portable arbitrary data structures without reimplementing them with a code generator. Ugh!

Yeah, I find it strange how languages are trending at a glacially slow pace to having the same features that strongly typed functional programming languages have had for literally decades. It's like we're going to be using actual functional programming languages eventually but the only way it'll happen is to very slowly change what everyone is currently using in small steps.

Static types, immutability, type inference and non-null variables are popular design choices right now but they've been in functional programming languages for nearly 50 years. I'm still waiting for inductive types and pattern matching to turn up in a mainstream language and seeing them talked about like they're new concepts.

Source: got to interact with the community between the C# 1.0 and 4.0 releases (2.0 added generics, 3.0 added lambdas, neither feature was considered of any use to a Productive Developer up to the day when Microsoft officially announced them).

That isn't true inside Microsoft. Many of the people who work on C# are the same academic wanks that work on Scala or F#. C# has a different user base from those languages though, so they still have to be careful what they add to the language, and many language features are planned 3 or 4 versions in advance.

No, that was not intended as included in "the C# community". Hell, SPJ used to work at Microsoft (he may still do, but he used to).

> the people who work on C# are the same academic wanks that work on Scala or F#

I'm sure you mean wonks, but I liked the typo.

> C# has a different user base from those languages though, so they still have to be careful what they add to the language, and many language features are planned 3 or 4 versions in advance.

I have no issue with the evolution of C# rate or otherwise, only with a number of its users.

C# has a specific audience, and the language designers cater to them pretty well. I really really like C# as a language, and I don't mind delayed access to certain features that I already like from other languages.

You probably have a beef with some C# users not because of their choice of language, but with the field they work in (primarily enterprise) tends to breed a certain kind of attitude that other techies don't like very much.

(says a man planning to purchase his 5th Macbook Pro later this year)

There are good reasons to use C#, so when it gets a new feature that other languages have had for years, well, it is newsworthy.

Now when will javascript get pattern matching?

C# and Java are slowly catching up :)

Human behaviour is strange when you expect rationality. Sour grapes is such a pervasive cognitive bias that one has to wonder why it exists since it's obviously irrational. I think it's likely that it presents a major advantage in the psychology of group cohesion.

40, nearing on 45:

> Milner, R., Morris, L., Newey, M. "A Logic for Computable Functions with reflexive and polymorphic types", Proc. Conference on Proving and Improving Programs, Arc-et-Senans (1975)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8756683

They just weren't ready to make any of the significant tradeoffs other languages have to do in order to support them.

Whether that's a good outcome, I'm not fully sure - but there's definitely a lot of research in that area.

The idea that the monomorphization/boxing tradeoff can be dodged by not having generics in the language is a fallacy. In Go, today, you as a programmer already have to decide which side of the tradeoff you want every time you write something that could be generic. It's just that the compiler doesn't help you at all.

And even that is not the whole story, just because you reify generics does not mean you have to monomorphise everything, Microsoft's C# compiler only monomorphises value types.

Also Go may box in other contexts than interfaces depending on escape analysis (according to https://golang.org/doc/faq#stack_or_heap).

Does that mean writing a separate version of an algorithm for each type or types that you want it to handle? Like a sort for ints, a sort for floats, etc., even if the logic is otherwise the same (or almost)?

Not a PL design or theory expert, just interested.

There is also the approach taken by Swift, where values of generic type are unboxed in memory, and reified type metadata is passed out of band. There's no mandatory monomorphization.

Hybrid approaches in which the compiler (or JIT!) decides whether to monomorphize or use vtables are also possible.

Also the Swift optimizer can clone and specialize generic functions within a module, eliminating the overhead of indirection through reified metadata.

The compiler specializing/monomorphizing as an optimisation shows that Swift has a hybrid approach that tries to balance the trade-offs of both (like many other languages, like Haskell, and, with explicit programmer direction, Rust), but the two schemes still fall into the broad categories of monomorphizing vs dictionary passing, not something fundamentally different.

Yeah as pointed out in that very thread by pjmlp:

    As usual, it lacks discussion about generics in:
    Eiffel
    Ada
    Modula-3
    D
    MLton
    .NET
    Rust
    Haskell
    OCaml
    Sather
    BETA
    CLU

> They just weren't ready to make any of the significant tradeoffs other languages have to do in order to support them.

Ah yes, the ever so convenient but never actually clarified "tradeoffs", which only ever happen for generics but oddly enough apparently don't happen for any other feature.

> there's definitely a lot of research in that area.

That there is, would be nice if Go's designers ever bothered actually using it.

I don't know exactly what the problem is for Go. There are tradeoffs, e.g., just with the type system: impredicative, stratified or predicative quantification, implicit subtyping or explicit type instantiation, value restrictions, variance handling for mutable inductive types, Hindley-Milner or bidirectional typechecking, etc. There are more tradeoffs with the implementation. Fortunately, these are all well understood by now.

However, it is also true that many mainstream languages famously got generics wrong. What's most infurating about this situation is that a lot of research just gets ignored. If the question is really "should Go have generics whose design is based on C++ templates and/or Java generics" then the only sane answer is a resounding no.

The numeric tower of lisps is the canonical use case of what generic functions are good for.

Smalltalk, the second greatest language after Lisp, is also good example.

See also all of the "container" portion of the stdlib: https://golang.org/pkg/container/

All of those should be generic, but aren't.

Clearly there's already sufficient demand for generic collections just based on the stdlib and the fact sync.Map was seen as needed.

I think even more damning then "these should be generic" is that there should be more of them. The real problem is the lack of generics inhibits the introduction of more data structures because they are hard to use.

It is true that arrays and maps/hashes take you a long way, but there's a lot of other useful data structures in the world. And despite the fact they may look easy at first, data structure code tends to be notoriously difficult to write both correctly and with high performance.

They aren't because the prevailing attitude is "what do you need generics for? Just do a cast!"

The issue is the Go developers are unwilling to consider generics until someone can come up with a problem that absolutely, positively cannot be solved without generics. And of course there isn't one.

Go is turing complete already, so all problems are already able to be solved. :)

[1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/RKymTuSC... [2]: https://github.com/robpike/filter

1. Look at uses of cast operators in a codebase. How many of those would be eliminated by making the surrounding operation generic?

2. Go through the language spec and see how many features could be moved out of the language and into the core library if generics were supported.

It seems to me to be the same "Generics is some foreign concept we just heard of, and we're not sure how to implement them in Go yet, but we'll consider it if we chance upon some magical optimal way" that has been the official party line of Go since forever...

Even the "we are asking you for proposals" part has been there since a decade or so...

Nah, this is pretty much the same answer they've been giving all along, lots of handwaving about how generics are so cutting edge that no one can figure out how to use them effectively yet ("we just can't wrap our heads around this crazy idea!")

In other words, don't count on them in Go 2.

My specific problem when i realized it was an actual problem was when i tried to connect to a sql databse and working with a proper ORM.

This code (okay I made the use line up because it's not on the website and I'm lazy, you do need one though):

  use some::stuff::for::the::dsl;
  
  let versions = Version::belonging_to(krate)
      .select(id)
      .order(num.desc())
      .limit(5);
  let downloads = version_downloads
      .filter(date.gt(now - 90.days()))
      .filter(version_id.eq(any(versions)))
      .order(date)
      .load::<Download>(&conn)?;

Thanks to generics, all of this checking is computed at compile time. The end resulting code is the equivalent of

  let results = handle.query("SELECT version_downloads.*
    WHERE date > (NOW() - '90 days')
      AND version_id = ANY(
        SELECT id FROM versions
          WHERE crate_id = 1
          ORDER BY num DESC
          LIMIT 5
      )
    ORDER BY date");

You can absolutely create an ORM _without_ generics, but it cannot give you the same level of guarantees at compile time, with no overhead.

It also heavily relies on generic types to ensure that everything is well-formed, and to provide zero overhead.

There's two variants on a single way: basically, a "schema.rs" file contains your schema. You can write it out, and (with the help of migrations) it will update it when you create a new migration, or, you can have it literally connect to the DB at compile time and introspect the schema.

> Also, type checking is negligible from a performance perspective, so I the "zero overhead" is of minimal interest.

Ah, but it's not "the type checking is fast", it's the "diesel can generate hyper-optimized outputs that don't do runtime checks". Like, as an interesting example, Diesel can (well, will be, this has been designed but not implemented yet) actually be _faster_ than a literal SQL statement. Why? The SQL literal is in a string. That means, at runtime, your DB library has to parse the string, check that it's correct, convert it to the databases' wire format, and then ship it off. Thanks to strong generics, since the statements are checked at compile time, none of those steps need to be done at runtime; the compiler can pre-compile that DSL into postgres' wire format directly.

The reason this hasn't actually been implemented yet is that it's admittedly a tiny part of the overall time, and the Diesel maintainers have more pressing work to do. I use it as an example because it's an easier one to understand than some of the other shenanigans that Diesel does internally. It couldn't remove this kind of run-time overhead without generics.

Few typesystems come close to that (Coq is one of the few languages where the system might be advanced enough), but generally you want to completely remove entire classes of errors.

How (well) does diesel deal with migrations? I've seen other ORMs fall down the stairs trying to deal with schema modification over time.

How (well) does diesel deal with migrations? I've seen other ORMs fall down the stairs trying to deal with schema modification over time.

"diesel migraiton run" will run all pending migrations, there's revert/redo as well. "diesel migration generate" can generate these files and directories for you; it doesn't yet (that I know of) have helpers to write the SQL though (like Rails does for its migrations).

On deploy, it runs the migrations first https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/thanks/blob/master/buil...

I believe there are some interesting improvements coming down the line in the future, but for now, it works pretty well.

I would need one for each and every struct(table).

These days there is a tool that can generate all those struct methods: https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler

So from the ORM perspective we (as the community) have worked around it.

Now Repository<T> and for us around 200,000 lines of code are gone and only one narrow set of tests to execute.

    class Collection<T implements Entity> {
        void insert(T entity) {
            String vals = entity.props.map(escapeSql).join(",");
            String qs = entity.props.map(x => "?").join(",");
            PreparedStatement p = db.prepare("insert into %s (%s) values (%s);", this.tableName, qs, vals);
            db.submit(p);
        }
    }

This is such a troll'ish statement, but I'll respond anyways because maybe you actually are just that uninformed. Without generics any number of libraries that utilize generic function blocks - Func [1] in C#, Callable [2] in Java, etc., and do things like return the function's type parameter as a method result, would not be possible. This is exceedingly common, at least in libraries. If you want to know how common, let me refer you to my friend http://google.com.

Just because something isn't valuable to you, personally, doesn't mean it's not valuable. As in all aspects of life, not everyone is you.

1. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb549151(v=vs.110)....

2. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurre...

It seems like you’d have valuable feedback given that it’s a “showstopper” for you.

- performance wise: no dynamic dispatch, means no virtual function call, means faster code.

- type safety: let say I want a data structure that can store anything but everything in it must be the same type. You just can't do that with Go's current type system without introspection (which is cumbersome and really slow).

Generics already exists in Go : maps, slices and channels and generic, and it was mandatory for performance reason. The problem of not having generics is that the community can't build its own implementation of useful data structures : for instance, until the last release Go lacked a thread-safe map. That's fine, let's use a library for that … Nope, can't implement that because, “no generics”.

Generics are rarely useful in your own code, but they allow people to create good abstractions in their libraries. Without generics, the ecosystem growth is limited.

No, you can't, because generics don't provide the key feature of interfaces: run-time dynamism.

You could make a case that static polymorphism and dynamic polymorphism could be accomplished by a single mechanism, as traits do in Rust, but you can't say generics are "better" than interfaces, since they solve a different set of problems, with different implementation strategies, despite related theoretical foundations.

> The problem of not having generics is that the community can't build its own implementation of useful data structures

This is not true either, although it is true that it is harder to do this sort of thing in Go, the result may in fact not be as fast as you can achieve with monomorphisation, and you may have to write more code by hand.

The "trick" is the Go model is to provide an interface (which yes, potentially unnecessarily uses a dynamic mechanism) to implement indirect operations. For example the Swap function of https://golang.org/pkg/sort/#Interface enables https://golang.org/pkg/container/heap/#Interface - which is a reusable data structure. Compiler-level static-generics for slices and arrays, combined with indirecting through array indexes, enables you to avoid boxing when instantiating the heap interface. The data structure can be instantiated with an interface once, so there is no dynamic lookup for heap operations, but there is still a double indirect call.

Yes, this is less convenient than proper generics, but this doesn't mean you can't do these things.

Furthermore, I've never actually needed to do this outside of sorting (which is, absolutely, is annoying) in large projects. Almost every time I need a specialized data structure, I usually need it for performance reasons, and so hand-specializing for my needs tends to be worthwhile anyway.

> Generics are rarely useful in your own code, but they allow people to create good abstractions in their libraries.

I'd like to see something like templates or generics for Go, but I definitely don't want Java-style "fake" generics without code specialization. Furthermore, I found that the vast majority of generics-heavy libraries back in my C# days were more trouble than they are worth, despite meaningful opportunities for better performance with value types. Copy/paste almost always resulted in a better outcome.

Yep, assembly is less convenient than Go, but it doesn't mean you can't write programs using assembly.

i almost feel this is like asking bjarne what use cases there are for 'classes' in c-with-classes. it's a structural language change that (depending on implementation details) can have sweeping ramifications on how one writes code.

type parameterization allows for the expression of algorithms, idioms and patterns wholly or partially separate from concrete type details. i'm sure others can better sell the topic though.

What use cases do they need other than the extremely large body of public knowledge on the matter, and why would one more example change anyone's mind?

To me this represents the epitome of the insular and outwardly hostile attitude that the Go team has toward good ideas elsewhere in the CS world. Would it really make a difference to the team if I or anyone else were to hunt down specific examples and present them with problems solved with generics and stronger type systems?

I doubt it.

... but, hey, just to indulge you, a few off the top of my head:

- Generic containers in libraries (aka not built-in)

- Parametricity to restrict user-supplied implementations of interfaces; not quite as valuable in a language with casts, etc., but still reasonably valuable.

- To give a sound account for the currently-magic built-in types.

That should be enough, frankly, but I'm sure I could come up with more if I were to spend 5 more minutes on it...

Can we stop pretending that they don't know of any compelling use cases now?

The Go team have been long criticized for choosing the option that fits Google, but not the rest of the world. This seems like their attempt to think about what others are doing with the language, beyond their insular experience, so they don't end up with something that fits Google perfectly but falls apart everywhere else.

If they don't take the time to learn how people intend to use generics in Go, the best solution for Google, and Google alone, is what we will get.

It's not unreasonable to ask "how do we implement this in the best way?", but I'll note a) that's not what was asked, and b) I have a hard time believing that code at Google is so incredibly "special" that they need a special kind of generics. Also, if Google is such a unique snowflake why not ask the Google people directly rather than the "Go community"?

They asked for use cases from a wide range of people to ensure they implement it in the best way. Subtly different, but essentially the same request.

> I have a hard time believing that code at Google is so incredibly "special" that they need a special kind of generics.

I didn't say they need special generics. I said the approach that works best at Google may not be the best approach for the population at large. If Google is best served by C++-style generics, while the community as a whole would be better served by Haskell-style generics, why just jump in and do it the C++ way before seeing how others might want to use it?

> Also, if Google is such a unique snowflake why not ask the Google people directly rather than the "Go community"?

Because they are trying to avoid the mistake of using one datapoint like Go has struggled with in the past? They know what works in Google, but that doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. See: Package dependencies, among many.

Phrasing is important, and obviously (from the reactions of me and others in the thread) the phrasing was way off and perceived as condescending and lazy.

> I didn't say they need special generics. I said the approach that works best at Google may not be the best approach for the population at large. If Google is best served by C++-style generics, while the community as a whole would be better served by Haskell-style generics, why just jump in and do it the C++ way before seeing how others might want to use it?

OK, so you said they don't need a special generics, but then say that they do. I must not be understanding what you're trying to say. (If this is about choosing trade-offs, then see the other poster who talked about trade-offs. Executive summary: Not doing generics is also a trade-off.)

Also: ASK GOOGLE.

> Because they are trying to avoid the mistake of using one datapoint like Go has struggled with in the past? They know what works in Google, but that doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. See: Package dependencies, among many.

You can't have it both ways. Either Google is important enough to it in a way that works for them, or the community is more important and they get to choose.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. I think we may be seeing this from viewpoints that are so different that it's pointless to continue.

I'm not sure how to argue constructively with someone who says "I'm not saying X, but..." and then immediately states a rephrasing of "X". I'm sure that's not what you think you are doing, but that's the way I'm seeing it, FWIW.

Maybe, but I don't know that we should be attacking someone's poor communication ability. I'm sure I've misunderstood at least one of your points too. Let's just focus on what was actually asked for: Use-case examples.

> OK, so you said they don't need a special generics, but then say that they do.

There isn't an all encompassing 'generics'. Generics is a broad category of different ways to achieve reusable statements across varying types, in a type-safe manner. To try and draw an analogy, it is kind of like functional and imperative programming. Both achieve the function of providing a way to write programs, but the paradigms differ greatly. Each with their own pros and cons.

If imperative programming is the best choice for Google, that doesn't mean the community wouldn't be better served by functional programming, so to speak. And when it comes to generics, there are quite a few different paradigms that can be used, and not easily mixed-and-matched. They are asking for use-cases to determine which generics paradigm fits not only the needs at Google, but the needs everywhere.

> Also: ASK GOOGLE.

The Go team is Google. They have asked Google. Now they are asking everyone else. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.

> Either Google is important enough to it in a way that works for them, or the community is more important and they get to choose.

In the past Google was seen as the most important, and they have been widely criticized for it. This is them moving in a direction that favours the community. And they are still being criticized for it... Funny how that works.

Yes, thank you. Everybody in this thread already knows that. PICK ONE.

(EDIT: I should also add: Since Go is structually typed and has mutable variables, that should be a good indication of what to do and what not to do. See e.g. Java arrays, variance and covarince.)

> If imperative programming is the best choice for Google, that doesn't mean the community wouldn't be better served by functional programming, so to speak. And when it comes to generics, there are quite a few different paradigms that can be used, and not easily mixed-and-matched. They are asking for use-cases to determine which generics paradigm fits not only the needs at Google, but the needs everywhere.

And now you're trying to bring imperative vs. functional into this?

I think IHBT... and this really is my last comment in this thread. Have a good $WHATEVER.

They are picking one, based on the use-cases that will be given to them in the near future. I don't understand what your point is here.

> Since Go is structually typed and has mutable variables, that should be a good indication of what to do and what not to do.

That may be true, but the worst case scenario is that they learn nothing from the examples they get. You don't have to provide any if you feel it is a useless endeavour. If it gives them comfort, so be it.

> And now you're trying to bring imperative vs. functional into this?

It wasn't clear if you understood what I meant by there being different ways to provide generics. I struggled to write it as eloquently as I had hoped and the analogy was meant to bridge what gaps may have existed.

It's almost like communication can be difficult. Where have I see that before? Hmm...

> It's almost like communication can be difficult.

We can agree about that! :)

> Where have I see that before? Hmm...

Not sure what you mean (ironically?).

Have a good night :).

"Find us examples and show us so we can ponder this further" is incredibly condescending after we did that 5 years ago and they decided to stall (or to use the author's term, "wait") on the issue. Honestly I think it might be too late for generics to be added, because the large body of existing interfaces aren't generic and likely would have a very high transition cost.

It's actually a classic bulshitting tactic by people who have no actual argument. Effectively, it's "well, we'll defer a choice until we can PROVE that decision X is PERFECT in EVERY way."

That's not to say: IF there's a real, quantifiable doubt, then by all means, continue to discuss (but preferably set time limits), but to do that you MUST set out precisely what the problems are, what potential solutions could (and couldn't) be, etc. etc. Not just vague "this feels wrong" objections.

It's not rocket science.

And because it's 2017.

Why do we need anything beyond assembler?

Then you'll wish you had generics. :)

I remember when Java started to have generics in 1.5. It was very hard to go back to 1.4 after having used that. I feel that I just can't program without them any longer.

It's a small superset of Go that allows you to call map/filter/reduce methods on any slice. It's not true generics (you can't define your own generic functions or types) but it covers the most common use case for me: declarative data processing.

If Go wants to be more sophisticated, there are other sophisticated languages I can use out there like Haskell, Rust, F#, Scala, etc. The problem I have learned in my career is "sophistication" usually gets in the way of getting things done because now you have all these clever developers full of hubris creating these novel implementations that nobody else in the world understands, and your project fails but hey -- at least you have a dope, terse, generic implementation -- totally rad.

Depending how they're implemented, you might not have to use them (even via libraries). Not using the language altogether is a bit dramatic.

This is my beef with JavaScriot these days... They introduced a slew of new, in my opinion insane, control structures, and while I can avoid them in my code, they are still slowly polluting my dependencies, and adding obscure runtime requirements for my projects.

a) generic programming is a new thing

b) any of those people you mention aren't using go for some things and other things where this feature is desired

c) that the feature will 'at best' be at level X

d) that level X won't be enough to satisfy some use cases

and a whole host of other things, not least of which the fact that go itself was invented to suit some purpose after other languages existed, and has been successful for many users

Any new language is already playing catch-up to reach the state of the art. Go is 10 years old and in those 10 years has made astonishingly little progress at implementing basic features such as error handling, because the designers cannot escape their bubble.

The most sensible thing to do is to kill Go, not to improve it. The root problem is not the lack of this or that feature, but the bizarre beliefs of the people running the project.

Care to expand this? It's pretty clear that you don't find Go suitable for your own use cases, but I've found it to be an extremely productive language, despite the fact that it may have a couple of warts.

The Go team needs to stop trying to control what people do with their language. If people come up with crazy implementations, it's their own problem. It's up to the Go community to provide alternatives to prevent those crazy implementations from becoming standardized in Go programming culture. Refusing to implement generics because programmers might abuse them is paternalistic and counterproductive.

Some people are turned away from C++ after seeing random bits of crazy language/template misuse, although when used sanely C++ could've served them nicely for their job.

Same thing is going to happen to Swift very soon.

https://engineering.kitchenstories.io/comfortable-api-reques...

Those function signatures are definitely not... self-documenting, I'd say.

In C++, on the other hand, separate compilation of template for each instantiation is effectively part of language semantics, because it has numerous observable effects.

/jk 2

My more cynical reaction is that someone who doesn't understand the benefit of generics or can't even come up with examples where generics are superior to their alternative should not be allowed anywhere near a language design discussion.