Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | page 2 login

The paragraph I was looking for is this:

> For example, I've been examining generics recently, but I don't have in my mind a clear picture of the detailed, concrete problems that Go users need generics to solve. As a result, I can't answer a design question like whether to support generic methods, which is to say methods that are parameterized separately from the receiver. If we had a large set of real-world use cases, we could begin to answer a question like this by examining the significant ones.

This is a much more nuanced position than the Go team has expressed in the past, which amounted to "fuck generics," but it puts the onus on the community to come up with a set of scenarios where generics could solve significant issues. I wonder if Go's historical antipathy towards this feature has driven away most of the people who would want it, or if there is still enough latent desire for generics that serious Go users will be able to produce the necessary mountain of real-world use cases to get something going here.

That's a charitable way to look at the comment.

My more cynical reaction is that someone who doesn't understand the benefit of generics or can't even come up with examples where generics are superior to their alternative should not be allowed anywhere near a language design discussion.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact