Channels Are Not Enough

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by swah on Monday September 15, 2014 @12:01PM (#8319613)

I also find Go pragmatic but lacking abstraction power. The other day I needed a stack, and the best solution I could find was this: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/iwlzqNa4h3g/xCy3...

    to be honest, if i need a stack, i usually implement it for the type 
    in question, or inline, as it's only a very small number of lines: 

    type stack []T 
    func (s *stack) push(t T) { 
        *s = append(*s, t) 
    } 
    func (s *stack) pop() T { 
        n := len(*s) 
        t := (*s)[n-1] 
        *s = (*s)[:n-1] 
        return t 
    }

And that's what I'm using...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by NateDad on Monday September 15, 2014 @02:24PM (#8320465)

It's 10 lines of very obvious code. Isn't that a good thing? Do you really need stack.New<T>()?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Channels Are Not Enough by swah on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:37PM (#8322434)

Yes, I do think so. Then I could keep thinking about the "business problem" instead of googling for half an hour because I can't believe there is no one reuses a stack in Go.

Also, it could be something much more complicated than a stack, like the data structures in the STL... but that point has already been made elsewhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]