[generics] Thank you Go team

[Michael Jones]

I doubt this will help, but I have to try...

Really smart and accomplished people have worked for a year to refine the generics approach--as the impressive updated design draft and the scholarly FeatherweightGo paper both demonstrate. The design is accompanied with tools to allow development and experience by any interested Go developer. This is marvelous. Thank you Go team and helpers!

Let's post about substantial things in the design ("generic type switch necessary at day one" maybe, whatever) and not only about parenthesis. I'm going crazy here seeing all the comments about that. I mean, think of how hard they are working on this; parenthesis posts read like More Cowbell to me.

Sorry for the outburst,

Michael

P.S. I challenge you to fully read the Featherweight Go paper and the design draft, as I did, and then come away thinking about the expression of the idea rather than the idea. I just can't comprehend it -- it is the ideas that hold power and beauty, that will transform our daily work.

--

Michael T. Jones
michae...@gmail.com

[Marcin Romaszewicz]

I'd like to add a big +1 here. The proposal around contracts and generics is solid from a conceptual perspective, and I enjoyed reading the rationale behind what's supported, and what isn't, and I think this is a wonderful addition to the language which keeps type safety in a very Go-like way despite all the flexibility. It's really good language design, and the syntax won't change what we can do with it. I look forward to simplifying a lot of my code once this ships by reusing many data structures I've implemented separately for many types. I have a whole team working on Go code in production, so I just have to wait until it's shipped officially and is stable.

Thank you Go Team. I was a Googler when Go was created, and I remember Rob Pike saying that one of the reasons behind it was to keep programming fun, to take out the drudge work, and it's been amazingly successful in that regard.

-- Marcin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CALoEmQyzv%3D4JxtJjpqC6R5u%3DkwjMtYH%3Die9H3KQYWyB3U%2B1Ybg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jesper Louis Andersen]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:16 AM Michael Jones <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:

Really smart and accomplished people have worked for a year to refine the generics approach--as the impressive updated design draft and the scholarly FeatherweightGo paper both demonstrate. The design is accompanied with tools to allow development and experience by any interested Go developer. This is marvelous. Thank you Go team and helpers!

I read the FWGo paper and I liked what I saw. I think the current path has a good chance of solving a large majority of the cases where you currently find Go lacking in expressivity. And it can also provide a more type-safe programming style, which is always welcome.

Fitting parametric polymorphism (or type lambdas) into a language post its release isn't that easy. This is promising in my opinion.

[Josh Hoak]

Huge +1 here -- thank you Go Team! I've loved following the designs for generics, and I'm really loving playing around with this latest prototype. It was also fantastic to hear Phil Wadler talk about Monomorphism and Featherweight go. I'm really excited to see where this latest iteration goes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAGrdgiVHre%2Bw9wS92i%3Dgb1hV_gtaKLWyrO5uY0ycQy4k8v4Q9g%40mail.gmail.com.

[ffm...@web.de]

Also big +1 from my side and kudos to Ian for always answering to this storm of objections and suggestions with patience and objectiveness

[ancientlore]

+1. I found the new draft readable and in practice it feels quite natural. My hope was always that generics would "feel like Go".