Good union types in Go would probably need types without a zero value

Re:Good union types in Go would probably need types without ... by relistan on Monday December 09, 2024 @03:29AM (#42364098)

There are so many of these stories about why some popular feature from other languages doesn’t fit into Go. Great. It’s already a nice and very productive language. If you don’t like it, just use something wise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Good union types in Go would probably need types without ... by nilptr on Monday December 09, 2024 @08:39AM (#42366180)

> If you don’t like it, just use something wise.

The reason this stuff comes up is because many folks are forced to use a language for commercial reasons due to job. It's not as simple as just fscking off to use something else you desire. Good luck selling that rewrite.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Good union types in Go would probably need types without ... by relistan on Tuesday December 10, 2024 @03:32AM (#42374958)

So shoehorning something into the language is a shorter path to success. Yeah that checks out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Good union types in Go would probably need types without ... by the_gipsy on Monday December 09, 2024 @08:54AM (#42366295)

"just use something else" hasn't worked out for generics either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Good union types in Go would probably need types without ... by nine_k on Monday December 09, 2024 @09:32AM (#42366533)

> just use something wise.

Sometimes autocorrect is serendipitous.

[ Parent | on HN ]