[Fwd: Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics false dichotomy]

[Paulo Pinto]

On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 03:48:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
>> ------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> From: Aram Hăvărneanu <aram.h at mgk.ro>
>>> To: Jonathan Amsterdam <jbamsterdam at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: golang-nuts <golang-nuts at googlegroups.com>, Michael Jones
>>> <mtj at google.com>, Jonathan Barnard 
>>> <jonathan.t.barnard at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics false dichotomy
>>> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:03:38 +0100
>>>
>>> D pays a huge penalty in compilation speed for generics. D 
>>> generics
>>> are turing complete, making compilation time potentially 
>>> unbounded.
>>> Dmd might build their standard library quickly, but this says 
>>> nothing
>>> about the fundamental issue.
>>>
>>> Potentially unbounded compilation times are unacceptable for 
>>> Go.
>>>
>
> Go pays a huge penalty in execution speed. Go is turing 
> complete, making runtime potentially unbounded. The programs 
> written in Go that have actually been created might execute 
> quickly, but this says nothing about the fundamental issue.
>
> Potentially unbounded execution times are unacceptable for D.
>
> But Go's fundamental problems don't even stop there. In order 
> to build even just the Go compiler itself, a series of shell 
> scripts are provided 
> <http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/src>. Batch and bash 
> are both turing complete, therefore Go's very own buildscripts 
> have potentially unbounded compilation times. In reality, they 
> won't actually execute forever unless someone screws up and 
> does something stupid, but reality, of course, is unimportant. 
> What's *really* important here are highly unlikely scenarios 
> that have yet to ever actually surface and can't be handled 
> without resorting to such inexcusably difficult and drastic 
> measures as pressing Ctrl and C simultaneously.
>
> Go-nuts really is nuts, apparently.

Worse, is that they think as acceptable to create templating 
tools, similar to what Borland and others offered with their 
compilers when templates started to be discusses at ISO.

Sometime around the mid 90's, almost 20 years ago!

Having a strong typed language without generics support in the 
21st century is not understandable.

--
Paulo