Re:Toward Go 2
by masklinn on Thursday July 13, 2017 @02:18PM
(#14763772)
> Guess what: they did.
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
Oh wait, they're pointing out that none of these is even remotely being discussed in the article hinting that they did not, in fact, and much prefer taking down strawmen they built from some sort of daguerreotypes of Java and C++.
> 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.
Yeah as pointed out in that very thread by pjmlp:
Oh wait, they're pointing out that none of these is even remotely being discussed in the article hinting that they did not, in fact, and much prefer taking down strawmen they built from some sort of daguerreotypes of Java and C++.> 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.