How generics are implemented in Go 1.18

Re:How generics are implemented in Go 1.18 by valenterry on Wednesday March 02, 2022 @02:03AM (#30524584)

I think OP didn't even start using go in practice, so the question doesn't help.

But I can say that it's the same ad with natural languages. No one ever feels that their mother tongue is limiting, until they learn a new and very different language and learn a pattern/style that they cannot apply in the mother tongue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How generics are implemented in Go 1.18 by omginternets on Saturday March 05, 2022 @04:52PM (#30572295)

That's fair, except that I routinely program in:

- Go

- OCaml

- Python

- Lisp

I think I have a reasonably good sense of what each language offers and what it does not. But OP goes beyond saying "Go does not offer some features that other languages offer"; he effectively says that the language causes severe problems. Where are they?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How generics are implemented in Go 1.18 by valenterry on Sunday March 06, 2022 @07:08AM (#30577006)

"severe" is certainly subjective, so you might disagree.

From my perspective, none of the languages you listed allows for good error handling. But that is obviously only my perspective. I would call this a "severe" issue. In fact, all languages that k I know have at least one "severe" issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How generics are implemented in Go 1.18 by masklinn on Wednesday March 02, 2022 @03:14AM (#30525042)

This actually has a name in programming circles: the blub paradox.

I guess in natural langages this would be the sapir-whorf hypothesis.

Blub seems like a much stronger effect though, at least anecdotally. But that might be because natural languages are rarely compared in terms of features / capabilities, and even more rarely “ranked” along various such axis.

[ Parent | on HN ]