Re:The Next Step for Generics
by entha_saava on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @12:22AM
(#23547763)
I have to refute this 'simple and practical' claim.
Not having generics and neither having very common tools doesn't seem very good. You will have to write a for loop for what is a simple function call in python or javascript or <insert modern language here>. Such detail easily interrupts reading / writing flow.
Re:The Next Step for Generics
by totalperspectiv on Tuesday June 16, 2020 @05:19PM
(#23544305)
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I'd nit pick and say that lack of generics and presence of implicit null types make Go not simple and not practical over other options in the same space.
As someone using Java which has null and hardly using any generics even though they are available in Java. I find Java immensely practical with huge number of libraries and other facilities of ecosystem.
Seems you are of the opinion if you do not find something practical no one else can.
And I find go immensely practical and Java immensely impractical. But I see its value. It's almost like we have different languages because people are myriad :)
Problem-space and learning styles play a huge role.
Having seen Java shortcomings up and close I can totally understand that. It is just that some folks think their subjective opinion about programing are some universal objective truths.
Go clearly values "simple and practical" over "elegant". It seems to be quite successful at that.