> But it seems impossible to have a HN discussion on Golang without part of the thread getting hijacked with "But generics!!!"
Surely the exact same criticism could be leveraged at go proponents pointing out the exact same features they love every time, should discussions of Go simply stop until the next major release, and only new features (if any) be discussable?
Re:Go by Example
by burntsushi on Friday January 17, 2014 @05:58PM
(#7079055)
> Surely the exact same criticism could be leveraged at go proponents pointing out the exact same features they love every time
This thread was started by someone complaining about lack of generics.
> should discussions of Go simply stop until the next major release, and only new features (if any) be discussable?
Why? Because there's no reasonable middle ground between "don't ever talk about Go until there's a release" and "hijack every thread about Go"?
My point is that generics are not a new idea either, and plenty of languages offer them. Go is not meant (anymore) to replace C/C++/Java or even Rust. It will never have all the features of those, and probably should not.
But it seems impossible to have a HN discussion on Golang without part of the thread getting hijacked with "But generics!!!" This make no more sense to me than considering other languages incomplete because they don't generate static binaries.