6 ms·

What Go Might Be Like With Generics

39 points by sentiental 13y ago

mseepgood 13y ago
tl;dr: <T>
- rogpeppe1 13y ago
  How about this instead? http://play.golang.org/p/hED7faR0q_ http://play.golang.org/p/hED7faR0q_
bvaldivielso 13y ago
It is undeniable that generics are a quite demanded feature for golang. We'll see how the language evolves, but I can't see them coming for a "long" time.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  I fully support language specialization -- that is kinda the point, it all ends up bits in the end. Rust is a completely different animal than Go yet I think both are awesome! The idea that all languages have to cater to all people is silly. Generics are ALWAYS a trade-off. None is hard for developers, C++ style is terrible for compile (tons of code-gen, macro crap, duplication, de-duplication stages), and Java style (box-box-box-box) is slow at runtime. The misunderstanding that generics are free and there lack of inclusion was an oversight rather than a choice is misguided. The Go team aren't fresh faced neophytes, they move with purpose. Additionally -- if you want lots of features, there are LOTS of ways great languages for you! Leave the small, crazy cadre of people who don't mind C, think Lua is awesome and think Go is great to their (own) devices, we will be OK.
  - p_random 13y ago
    you're awesome! you totally get the idea, people if the language does not fit your needs move on!!!! I mean seriously making all the fuss about generics even though that Go is being used in major projects (Cloudflare, UK.gov) yet we see more people arguing that is not right. I'm glad Rob Pike and Co. don't give a rats a about such opinions.
fiorix 13y ago
<T>errible to my eyes.
f2f 13y ago
is this trying to solve a particular problem or just pandering to the "... but generics!" crowd of trolls? because it doesn't look like it's solving anything, it feels positively ugly, and there's no way we'll every shut those people up no matter how hard we try. there's no generics solution that will do that. thankfully go's authors don't usually favour the internet's opinion on these matters, or we'd be dealing with something even uglier now.
- girvo 13y ago
  People who want generics, to solve real problems, in Go are trolls? Gosh that word has lost all meaning at this point.
  - f2f 13y ago
    <T>. they know who they are.
Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
Is the only argument that Go users can come up with against generics is that they don't like the syntax? The pretentious nature of the Go community really puts me off from the language, especially when combined with some of the pretentious designs of Go itself.
- marcus_holmes 13y ago
  Is the only argument that Go users can come up with against generics is that they don't like the syntax? Surely that's the best argument?
  - username223 13y ago
    > Surely that's the best argument? As pathetic as it is, "syntax bad" is probably the best argument.
- skybrian 13y ago
  No, the argument is that it's unclear how to fit it into the language. Typically, generics are implemented using either code generation (causing code bloat) or type erasure (which requires boxing the type). They're not satisfied with either.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
    A more accurate version of my comment would refer to "Go users" commenting in this thread.
  - smegel 13y ago
    Doesn't Go already do runtime code generation to implement closures?
    - BarkMore 13y ago
      Go does not generate code at runtime.
    - 13y ago
rollo 13y ago
Eventually those who need static typing and parametric polymorphism will switch to Haskell anyway, where both are done in a much better way, both syntactically and implementation wise.
embwbam 13y ago
I use generics every day in typescript. I'm waiting to use go until it has them.
chimeracoder 13y ago
I have been writing Go daily at work for about a year and a half. It is now my primary language, and my default choice for any new projects, the way Python used to be. Before that, I come from a background in functional programming (and still find functional programming to be my favorite paradigm). It seems to me that there are two disjoint sets of people: those who write Go regularly, and those who complain about generics in Go. Of course, you can interpret this either way you wish! 1) Perhaps those latter people would like Go despite its lack of generics if they only bothered to get familiar with idiomatic Go. 2) Perhaps the lack of generics is precisely what prevents them from writing Go on a daily basis. But as someone who actually does write Go on a daily basis, and has for a year and a half, I can honestly say that I've only ever missed them a handful of times. And I say this as a functional programmer who is used to being able to call "map" everywhere. In fact, if I had to prioritize the things that I wish I could change about Go, generics would not be in the top three - not even in the top five[0]. They're just really something that I don't miss anymore. [0] I could tell you what they are, but that'd be making it too easy - give Go a shot, long enough to realize you really don't need generics as much as you think you do, and then you'll probably have a good idea of the good, bad, and ugly when it comes to Go.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  Just wanted to chime in and affirm your experience. I also love functional programming and have used Haskell for several projects (and will continue to do so). But I also use and love Go. Like you, I've bumped up against areas where some form of generics beyond structural subtyping would have helped me solve a problem more elegantly. But it's never been a huge issue. I think the primary reason why I'm drawn to Go is that I perceive it to be incredibly simple (like, Lua simple). Not just the language design, but the entire ecosystem---from idioms to tooling.
- ekidd 13y ago
  I've written several non-trivial Go programs, the most recent of which was a server that solved substitution ciphers (for use in subtitle OCR). I tried to write nice idiomatic Go code. And I'm usually pretty good at adapting my brain to strange languages—I've positively enjoyed Haskell, constraint programming in Mozart, distributed functional programming in Elixir, and quite a few other strange things. (To be fair, I never did get comfortable in Prolog.) And try as I might, every time I write a couple thousand lines of Go, I walk away in frustration. I love so much about the language, but my actual code keeps disappearing under the weight of error handlers, and stupid little iteration/transformation functions that I have to write over and over again thanks to the lack of generics. (Sometimes I get lucky, and an interface fits well.) This means that every time I wander down a wrong path (and it's possible to wander down quite a few when messing with OCR algorithms), I end up having to tear up more code than I'd like. It's not fun. Every time I say this, Go programmers say something like, give Go a shot, long enough to realize you really don't need generics as much as you think you do. But after three serious attempts, it's clear that the programs in my head were never meant to be implemented in Go. Which is too bad: It's a nice language in so many ways.
reality_czech 13y ago
I'm more interested in what Go might be like without whiners.

39 points by sentiental 13y ago

mseepgood 13y ago

tl;dr: <T>

rogpeppe1 13y ago
How about this instead? http://play.golang.org/p/hED7faR0q_ http://play.golang.org/p/hED7faR0q_

bvaldivielso 13y ago

It is undeniable that generics are a quite demanded feature for golang. We'll see how the language evolves, but I can't see them coming for a "long" time.

MetaCosm 13y ago
I fully support language specialization -- that is kinda the point, it all ends up bits in the end. Rust is a completely different animal than Go yet I think both are awesome! The idea that all languages have to cater to all people is silly. Generics are ALWAYS a trade-off. None is hard for developers, C++ style is terrible for compile (tons of code-gen, macro crap, duplication, de-duplication stages), and Java style (box-box-box-box) is slow at runtime. The misunderstanding that generics are free and there lack of inclusion was an oversight rather than a choice is misguided. The Go team aren't fresh faced neophytes, they move with purpose. Additionally -- if you want lots of features, there are LOTS of ways great languages for you! Leave the small, crazy cadre of people who don't mind C, think Lua is awesome and think Go is great to their (own) devices, we will be OK.
- p_random 13y ago
  you're awesome! you totally get the idea, people if the language does not fit your needs move on!!!! I mean seriously making all the fuss about generics even though that Go is being used in major projects (Cloudflare, UK.gov) yet we see more people arguing that is not right. I'm glad Rob Pike and Co. don't give a rats a about such opinions.

fiorix 13y ago

<T>errible to my eyes.

f2f 13y ago

is this trying to solve a particular problem or just pandering to the "... but generics!" crowd of trolls? because it doesn't look like it's solving anything, it feels positively ugly, and there's no way we'll every shut those people up no matter how hard we try. there's no generics solution that will do that. thankfully go's authors don't usually favour the internet's opinion on these matters, or we'd be dealing with something even uglier now.

girvo 13y ago
People who want generics, to solve real problems, in Go are trolls? Gosh that word has lost all meaning at this point.
- f2f 13y ago
  <T>. they know who they are.

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago

Is the only argument that Go users can come up with against generics is that they don't like the syntax? The pretentious nature of the Go community really puts me off from the language, especially when combined with some of the pretentious designs of Go itself.

marcus_holmes 13y ago
Is the only argument that Go users can come up with against generics is that they don't like the syntax? Surely that's the best argument?
- username223 13y ago
  > Surely that's the best argument? As pathetic as it is, "syntax bad" is probably the best argument.
skybrian 13y ago
No, the argument is that it's unclear how to fit it into the language. Typically, generics are implemented using either code generation (causing code bloat) or type erasure (which requires boxing the type). They're not satisfied with either.
- Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
  A more accurate version of my comment would refer to "Go users" commenting in this thread.
- smegel 13y ago
  Doesn't Go already do runtime code generation to implement closures?
  - BarkMore 13y ago
    Go does not generate code at runtime.
  - 13y ago

rollo 13y ago

Eventually those who need static typing and parametric polymorphism will switch to Haskell anyway, where both are done in a much better way, both syntactically and implementation wise.

embwbam 13y ago

I use generics every day in typescript. I'm waiting to use go until it has them.

chimeracoder 13y ago

I have been writing Go daily at work for about a year and a half. It is now my primary language, and my default choice for any new projects, the way Python used to be. Before that, I come from a background in functional programming (and still find functional programming to be my favorite paradigm). It seems to me that there are two disjoint sets of people: those who write Go regularly, and those who complain about generics in Go. Of course, you can interpret this either way you wish! 1) Perhaps those latter people would like Go despite its lack of generics if they only bothered to get familiar with idiomatic Go. 2) Perhaps the lack of generics is precisely what prevents them from writing Go on a daily basis. But as someone who actually does write Go on a daily basis, and has for a year and a half, I can honestly say that I've only ever missed them a handful of times. And I say this as a functional programmer who is used to being able to call "map" everywhere. In fact, if I had to prioritize the things that I wish I could change about Go, generics would not be in the top three - not even in the top five[0]. They're just really something that I don't miss anymore. [0] I could tell you what they are, but that'd be making it too easy - give Go a shot, long enough to realize you really don't need generics as much as you think you do, and then you'll probably have a good idea of the good, bad, and ugly when it comes to Go.

burntsushi 13y ago
Just wanted to chime in and affirm your experience. I also love functional programming and have used Haskell for several projects (and will continue to do so). But I also use and love Go. Like you, I've bumped up against areas where some form of generics beyond structural subtyping would have helped me solve a problem more elegantly. But it's never been a huge issue. I think the primary reason why I'm drawn to Go is that I perceive it to be incredibly simple (like, Lua simple). Not just the language design, but the entire ecosystem---from idioms to tooling.
ekidd 13y ago
I've written several non-trivial Go programs, the most recent of which was a server that solved substitution ciphers (for use in subtitle OCR). I tried to write nice idiomatic Go code. And I'm usually pretty good at adapting my brain to strange languages—I've positively enjoyed Haskell, constraint programming in Mozart, distributed functional programming in Elixir, and quite a few other strange things. (To be fair, I never did get comfortable in Prolog.) And try as I might, every time I write a couple thousand lines of Go, I walk away in frustration. I love so much about the language, but my actual code keeps disappearing under the weight of error handlers, and stupid little iteration/transformation functions that I have to write over and over again thanks to the lack of generics. (Sometimes I get lucky, and an interface fits well.) This means that every time I wander down a wrong path (and it's possible to wander down quite a few when messing with OCR algorithms), I end up having to tear up more code than I'd like. It's not fun. Every time I say this, Go programmers say something like, give Go a shot, long enough to realize you really don't need generics as much as you think you do. But after three serious attempts, it's clear that the programs in my head were never meant to be implemented in Go. Which is too bad: It's a nice language in so many ways.

reality_czech 13y ago

I'm more interested in what Go might be like without whiners.