--
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/64e6d441-3564-49ab-9f97-233eda3ea682n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfEE%3DHbr%3D2HzsWA21GQdkXj33iqRJvT6jO_wHC-X-U1%3DBg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/8abb7704-ae60-4085-a7d7-0a8f7534e35dn%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/c67e637e-6eea-de85-1d43-e2d775424044%40mb0.org.
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/CADKwOTedhgWhxdRgiocwfWumghD5eBWe8AvL0HUmxN1pB-LUDA%40mail.gmail.com.
Not false at all. If you have more than one party, differing in
conflicting opinions on a subject and you make a final decision, you
_must_ ignore at least arguments of one of the parties.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Axel Wagner
<axel.wa...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> We have different interpretations of "ignore". To me, "ignore" means "be unaware of or pretend they don't exist".
> You seem to use it as "disagree about their validity or the weight they are given in the decision". That seems questionable to me.
No, that's not what I think. Opinions are not objectively measurable
and are thus in principle equal. Qualified people (not sure how to
define them), beginners, whoever. The decision maker assigned
subjective weights to the differing opinions and, again, that's just
fine and the only way to get the decision.
--
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/CAEkBMfEfpAvm6zPjGKqVGVfDSPPbVwpRdz3sn4njrBgZAG2sew%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfGbr-1g2NgpZryQeFWMgDzEnwYTfTGMaorWBV34jgcELw%40mail.gmail.com.
> The discussion of whether or not generics will be added to Go has been going on for more than a decade.That's a lie. There has never been a question of "add it or not". It was always "we will add them" sooner or later.
There wasn't even a poll or anything. So the question of whether this topic should be dropped completely (a lot of reasons why) has not been thought out.
You are a smart guy, one of the smartest I have ever talked to. But it looks like you somehow missed a very obvious thing. The people you mentioned (and most of the so-called Go team) AFAIK are Google employees. They work for a company and they are paid for the work they do.
If, as you say, they spend so much time, literally years, keep replying "if we find an approach that gives value blablabla", how do you imagine anyone responsible for the process at the end say smth like: "Alright guys, after spending so many man-years we have few solutions, but we finally realized that we were moving in wrong direction, so now we gonna be dropping everything for the sake of better future of Go".
Like c'mon? Read what's written, not just words and punctuation
And I repeat, there wasn't a (public) question or discussion or anything regarding should we drop this topic entirely.
Hello again,I apologize for being so intrusive.Where it is possible to read about the evaluations of labor and complexity forGO itself for different implementations to introduce generic in GO ?
Thank you.
There is a huge difference between generics and some regular questions like `Etag` implementation, isn't it? In time, investments, "community demand", commitments to upper management, etc
And Russ didn't write academic paper regarding it
(before accepting proposal in less than a month after it was published). =)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/3962fea5-0b98-47e9-af2f-94ffab9452fan%40googlegroups.com.
On Mar 15, 2021, at 7:04 PM, Jeremy French <ibi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet... it continues.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/6a690d7a-1f20-42d3-8528-94b80891d239n%40googlegroups.com.
There is always a "discussion", most people (as well as I) will look only at the final version of proposal, if and when they have time. And what's the point of having formal proposals if you don't respect that process? Once you published, please notify everyone and give them time to come back with critics. Or just do what you do, but don't tell me or anyone that there is any "community" behind, "decade of discussion" and all that stuff.
And are you saying that "consensus" is how many emojis "up", "down" or "confused" were collected? You know that it's pretty easy to cheat with that system right?
That's absolutely up to you, but some of us (including myself) can't invest so much time because we have to earn money for living.
I didn't ask for the poll, I just stated that there was no poll, as simple as that.
No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a "discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not of generics themselves as something to be avoided by all means.
My main complaint is that I think what Go team is doing right now is destructive and goes against Go core values,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/s2qag8%24i2a%241%40ciao.gmane.io.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/2f1b571a-17fe-42fa-8f33-7faa0211c7dfn%40googlegroups.com.
My concern (an uneducated concern) is that considering a micro running currently compatible parts of the stdlib with gc set to none and using global variables for reliable memory consumption.
*Might* Generics adoption within the stdlib make more of it unusable (assuming generics poses a problem, it might not).
This in itself is not a game stopper as I believe go is a useful language without gc or the stdlib. I do think that micros are important enough to be considered, however. Perhaps not important enough in the footprint of google services but maybe those that need Generics.
If I recall correctly. I may have raised it on the tinygo slack and the response was that nothing looked too problematic from what had been seen.
In any case, it might be worth the go team understanding what does and doesn't cause problems for tinygo?
--
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/58C57DC6-716D-4BD5-B32A-5492417A7302%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/58C57DC6-716D-4BD5-B32A-5492417A7302%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/20210317125511.46a0698d%40xmint.
> *Might* Generics adoption within the stdlib make more of it unusable
> (assuming generics poses a problem, it might not).
> No. Generics can be implemented as a purely compile-time feature
> <https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generics-implementation-stenciling.md>.
So, like I said, if you avoid using parts of the stdlib. Or are you saying that
existing parts of the stdlib will not migrate to using Generics.
If Generics has
any affect on the above link then I would have a conflict of interest in that I
hope they would migrate generally in order to avoid empty interface use.
--
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/b91bf116-a23b-8fdf-468b-cb83897d0a5b%40gmail.com.
That is not what you said or meant and I didn't make an assumption.
I was basically asking if TinyGo and Go should communicate more. I assume from
what you have said, that you disagree.
--
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/e92fef38-42c9-e68f-e42f-813a961d0063%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/9be9cf18-7191-c81c-9b86-e15d1827f944%40gmail.com.
It is still possible to write a formal proposal "canceling generics" if
someone find now a good reason, right ? (at the time of modules i
believe it was).
Thanks for your patience
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>> ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 02:12, Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org>:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:51 AM Space A. <reexi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > (To be clear, your original claim was that there *was* no discussion - which is at least easy to address, because it's clearly not true. There was over three years of active discussion on this)
>>> >
>>> > No, and I can repeat, there was no (public) discussion on whether the idea of generics in Go should be completely dropped. It *was* always a "discussion" of how to improve and implement generics in a Go way, but not of generics themselves as something to be avoided by all means.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but that simply isn't the case. Many different people at
>>> many different times suggested that the idea of adding generics should
>>> be dropped. Those ideas were discussed, supported, opposed, and so
>>> forth. It's been a long discussion over many years.
>>>
>>> Ian
>
--
wilk
--
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/s2vc5m%24sgd%241%40ciao.gmane.io.
> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an
example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a
good answer to that question? Thanks.Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as first class Android support.
On Mar 15, 2021, at 8:28 PM, Robert Engels <ren...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Very well said.On Mar 15, 2021, at 7:04 PM, Jeremy French <ibi...@gmail.com> wrote:I was really trying not to weigh in here, mostly because it's a decision that has been decided, so there's not a lot of point in continuing the discussion, and yesterday it seemed like the thread would die, yet... it continues.For context, I was against the generics proposal, primarily because it would make *my* life more complicated, while not providing *me* that much benefit. I raised the concerns I had, especially in regards to the "if you don't like it, don't use it" arguments. I participated in a couple conversations on this mailing list. In the end, I was fairly convinced that there were others in the community (and the community as a whole) who would benefit from the change far more than what it would cost me, and resigned myself to the change.All of that is just to establish my bona fides. If I were inclined to be biased on this topic, it would be against the Go team, not in their favor.And yet, I can say unequivocally that any suggestion that the Go team has railroaded this proposal through, or has ignored the concerns of its user base, is pure fiction. Every single concern or question I've seen raised has been addressed respectfully and at face value - even, I would say - several concerns or complaints on this side of the argument that perhaps reasonably could have been scoffed at or dismissed as just stupid. They have been respectful and attentive at every turn. I don't necessarily agree or like the decision they made, but these character assassinations against them or implications that they are subject to corruption from their corporate parent have no supporting evidence that I've seen, including any presented in this thread.It seems pretty clear that they are passionate about the health and longevity of the project, and are in the unenviable position of having to make a decision that is guaranteed to make some people angry no matter what they decide. But in the end, it is their call to make, and they made it the best way they could think of to do so. You can't ask any more than that.On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM atd...@gmail.com <atd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am in favor of the proposal but I think that accounting for popularity votes is not a good measure of things.
> A lot of people are at various stages of their technical journey in computer science and engineering and there has to be a weight given to the more technical opinions that is not reflected in the github upvote/downvote system.
> At one point, everyone would have upvoted that the earth was flat.
>
> Just a note in passing :)
Yes. I am not saying that the proposal was adopted because it had
good support. I am arguing against the suggestion that the proposal
should not have been adopted because it had a lot of critics.
Ian
> On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 11:03:50 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:08 AM Space A. <reexi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > For example, the multiple proposals that flowed out of
>> > https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md.
>> > None of them have been adopted.
>> >
>> > I remember what was happening to "try" error handling proposal. It was withdrawn only because of active resistance by the community.
>> >
>> > And what's happened to a new "generics" proposal, it also got a lot of critics but was "accepted" in less than a month after formal publication on github. As Russ said "No change in consensus". What does it mean? Who are these people who can change the consensus? How was it measured? A few days after Russ locked it, so nobody can even say a word against it if they wanted. So it looks very much that company management learned from "try" proposal.
>>
>> The design draft was put up for discussion for months before it became
>> a formal proposal. It was not new.
>>
>> The formal proposal (https://golang.org/issue/43651) got 1784 thumbs
>> up and 123 thumbs down (and ten "confused"). Yes, there were critics.
>> But I think it is fair to say that the proposal has far more
>> supporters than critics.
>>
>> The "no change in consensus" comment refers to the discussion after
>> the proposal was moved to "likely accept" status:
>> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/43651#issuecomment-772744198.
>> After it was marked as "likely accept", there was no change to the
>> consensus that it should be accepted. (Note that the "likely accept"
>> comment got 60 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down (and one "confused").)
>>
>> None of this is anything like the "try" proposal
>> (https://golang.org/issue/32437), which had 318 thumbs up and 794
>> thumbs down (and 132 "confused").
>>
>> Ian
>
> --
> 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/932a39b7-be1b-4c15-b7c8-f99fce730b0en%40googlegroups.com.
--
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/6a690d7a-1f20-42d3-8528-94b80891d239n%40googlegroups.com.
--
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/1624a7bf-1418-4a24-9e11-5ba8c76852b3n%40googlegroups.com.
Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics, I will do it myself.
--
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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com.
On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Kent Sandvik <san...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/0868C2C5-A4D5-4D38-B0B6-D1E955EAF7A4%40ix.netcom.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHXZpBQSzYuck7h8b79q0D5eRYVpAgitoWuPNacJOT%3Dig%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/lC9Z9VZXPdM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAHC_roGwVqqk9aiNv0h7Pa6XDDBWrr3HRBBMk9bHaZqjcrUG%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
|
So if I understand this correctly, you don't want to learn a new syntax in the language?
On Mar 18, 2021, at 12:57 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <golan...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfE8pz7m7oKuytYCs2NXks9W7rQhwSNXH3HEtyzYepiU9A%40mail.gmail.com.
Since pro-generics ppl here are struggling to provide any evidence of existence of open and public discussion on the topic of dropping generics, I will do it myself.
--
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/d8b96595-effe-4eed-898d-1c4e183189dbn%40googlegroups.com.