Re:Go 1.16 Release Notes
by swagonomixxx on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @07:15PM
(#26160773)
Yeah, it's kind of interesting how two extreme camps have evolved out of the "controversial" decision not to include generics in Go 1.0:
* Camp 1: generics will always be horrible, Go is right not to include it, it's too complex, Go is meant to be simple, etc.
* Camp 2: I will never use Go because it doesn't have generics, serious languages have generics, etc.
When in reality, both camps are pretty much wrong. Yes, generics are useful in a lot of places. But they also add no value in a lot of places. It's really on you to pick the tool you want to use. If you really want generics, pick C++ or Java instead. If you couldn't care less, Go is an option. It's much more fluid than this binarization of the topic has made it out to be.
Re:Go 1.16 Release Notes
by gher-shyu3i on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @11:24PM
(#26162674)
The issue is that the decision of which language to use at an employer is outside the control of the individual, so they're stuck with it.
Re:Go 1.16 Release Notes
by throw_m239339 on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @01:27AM
(#26163357)
Or Camp 3: Go is nice and I can't wait for generics to be included. It doesn't have to be either with or without.
No, it's just people complaining about generics for the sake of it at that point.