Channels Are Not Enough

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by zak_mc_kracken on Sunday September 14, 2014 @09:30PM (#8316871)

Pretty much every article that is posted about Go ends up in a never ending discussion about the absence of generics, which completely drowns the discussions about Go. As a result, the material on the web about Go has a very high noise/signal ratio, which is unfortunate.

Hopefully, the Go team will see this as one more reason to add generics to their language, but until they do that, Go will remain a niche language with a severely crippled potential.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by rdtsc on Sunday September 14, 2014 @10:48PM (#8317045)

> Pretty much every article that is posted about Go ends up in a never ending discussion about the absence of generics

Well either a lot of developers there looking at Go code are crazy, whiny and in general unpleasant human beings that like to make others' lives difficult or ... maybe it is a problem worth discussing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by ianlancetaylor on Monday September 15, 2014 @05:03PM (#8321513)

I have to credit this as being one of the more original arguments for adding generics to Go: we should do it because it will increase the signal/noise ratio in discussions about Go.

(Personally, I don't mind the ongoing discussions about generics in Go, I just wish they were less repetitive. It's very easy to say "add generics to Go!" It's a little bit harder to actually do it well.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by zak_mc_kracken on Monday September 15, 2014 @11:14PM (#8322853)

Yeah I was trying to insufflate new life in this tired debate, glad someone noticed :)

[ Parent | on HN ]