[OT] Go officially won't get generics

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 21:03:06 UTC, brad clawsie wrote:
> On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 19:07:24 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>
>> No, the context around what he said is very important. Google 
>> isn't leaving Go development, generics are not nixed for Go 
>> 2.0, the language will continue to see bug fixes. This is all 
>> very clear with context.
>
> I see this as a good. What would you rather use - a third party 
> library written against abstractions or one written against 
> concrete types? I would rather use a library based on concrete 
> types. My observation is that the more abstraction people 
> indulge, the greater the chance I will regard one of their 
> abstractions as a code smell.

Quite likely you won't be able to use that 3d party library with 
your types at all and will need runtime conversion between 
library types and your own. std.algorithm is prime example of how 
generalization improves code reuse.

> And it isn't the the case that the lack of generics is 
> inhibiting participation. Go's library selection is already 
> very good and getting better daily. Just yesterday I needed a 
> Go lz4 compression library and was able to find three distinct 
> implementations. Go is not hurting for third-party libraries.

This has nothing to do with the language. Existing mainstream 
languages are so bad that people will contribute to anything that 
is backed by solid brand and has enough fuss about. I clearly 
remember seeing several articles about crazy library design that 
is forced by Go lack of generics of any sort.