Other than that, generics have not really solved an actual problem for me in the real world. Nice to have, but too mush fuss about nothing relevant.
Other than that, generics have not really solved an actual problem for me in the real world. Nice to have, but too mush fuss about nothing relevant.
It's very subjective but my gut feeling is they probably didn't expand their community much by adding generics to the language.
No, it still feels like programming with a blindfold on and one hand tied behind my back. I truly don't get it. I've worked with a lot of languages and paradigms, am not a zealot by any means. Other than fast compiles and easy binary distribution, I don't see any value here, and I see even experienced Go programmers constantly wasting time writing unreadable boilerplate to work around the bad language design. I know I must be missing something because some people much smarter than me like this language, but... what is it?
if it is unreadable, in Go, probably the most readable language used today, i would question the aforementioned experience.
Heck, Go went out of it's way to "subvert expectations" more than the last season of Game of Thrones.
99% of decent C-ish languages either do "String thing" or "thing: String", but Go is so fancy and quirky, it does "thing String" for no freaking reason. Don't get me started on the nightmare that is map types.
I find that exception-based code is much harder to read. The happy path is clearer, but exceptional code paths are often completely obscured. It's harder to reason about what state the program is in when the exception is handled.