Less is exponentially more

Re:Less is exponentially more by capisce on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @04:30AM (#4160814)

> The Go team's view, in a nutshell, is that generics would offer some exciting possibilities for Go (particularly when combined with its concurrency model) but that it is also extremely hard to do generics well. We have put a huge amount of work into defining and refining Go, and we don't want to break it with a bad generics implementation.

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to take generics into account from the very start?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Less is exponentially more by mcculley on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @09:53AM (#4161737)

This is one of my concerns. Java clearly suffers from having generics bolted on much later and the underlying type system would be different if generics were contemplated from the start. Will Go have similar problems when they eventually add generics?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Less is exponentially more by luriel on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @12:39PM (#4162797)

Actually the Go team has mentioned what happened with Java is a reason why they have not added generics, they have said they wont add them unless they are 100% certain that they are happy with the design and that they will not damage the language.

[ Parent | on HN ]