News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Expectations for generics in Go 1.18. Parent comment

Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by mohanmcgeek on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:37PM (#29022104)
> How are you thinking of solving this with generics?

People can now create Try or Option monads instead of returning the error.

This was the one of the reasons anti generics people were anti generics

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by mseepgood on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @11:49PM (#29022176)
But that will make error handling more verbose.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by stouset on Thursday October 28, 2021 @12:38AM (#29022436)
Speaking as a user of languages that have exactly this, it can’t possibly be any worse than the situation in Go right now.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by mseepgood on Thursday October 28, 2021 @04:30AM (#29023724)
Other languages have an additional zoo of language syntax besides generics to make monadic error handling bearable, which Go doesn't have.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by mohanmcgeek on Thursday October 28, 2021 @07:23AM (#29024741)
It'll make it unmanageable by hiding complexity.

But more verbose? I'm not so sure.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by mseepgood on Thursday October 28, 2021 @08:55AM (#29025507)
Passing a single anonymous function is already more characters to type than if err != nil {}.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Expectations for generics in Go 1.18 by EdwardDiego on Thursday October 28, 2021 @02:48AM (#29023140)
Will it?

I can't see it myself, but happy to educate myself.

[ Parent | on HN ]