Re:Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang
by packetlost on Tuesday November 26, 2024 @03:27PM
(#42249689)
This was what I was referring to. The stdlib is what would need to see backwards-compatibility-breaking changes, not the language itself.
Re:Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang
by pdimitar on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @05:01AM
(#42254671)
I am not sure how would that work? F.ex. how would you introduce tagged unions and make the language 100% backwards-compatible... but not the stdlib?
I admit I have no idea.
Re:Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang
by 9rx on Wednesday November 27, 2024 @06:18AM
(#42255133)
The stdlib would remain 100% backwards compatible, but the implication was that he would want to see certain existing features of the stdlib amended with modified versions that leverage the new tagged unions. He imagined that modification would necessitate v2 stdlib packages to maintain sensibility.
You must mean the language? They said that a language v2 (go2) is probably unnecessary – that any future additions could be added without breaking the existing language. I don't expect simple tagged unions would need to break anything. A v2 (or even v3, perhaps) stdlib would be necessary to take advantage, like the parent suggests, but that has never been ruled out and is already the status quo.