Wouldn't it imply that they're happy with the current audience of the language, and don't wish to extend it ?
You're assuming that people who have some degree of interest in generics and aren't Go users right now will somehow and for some reason decide to avoid Go just because it lacks generics.
well not really. I'm saying it could be interesting to ask people that decided not to use go , the reason they choose not to, in order to expand their user base.
well not really. I'm saying it could be interesting to ask people that decided not to use go
You're assuming that these people have anything relevant to say, particularly as they present irrational arguments to justify their fatwa on a programming language.
Meanwhile, those who are interested in exploring the language and are interested in putting it to work aren't wasting their time with irrational stances on a minor technical detail.
I use Go quite a lot, and I agree with their "irrational arguments". It seems quite dishonest to pretend that anyone who doesn't use Go because they found it too restrictive to be "wasting their time with irrational stances". It's also quite close-minded.
You're right that most Go developers aren't going to go out of their way to write a 5-page dissertation about how generics would help solve a problem they worked around, but that's not a justification for not including generics. The fact you have to write orders of magnitude more code in order to work around a lack of generics is ridiculous, and I find it frustrating every time I have to do it. Will I eventually crack and write a series of blog posts that just rant about every single fucking problem I have with Go? Maybe. But it seems quite unreasonable to only want reviews which effectively must be of the form of a coherent rant.
Comments
Wouldn't it imply that they're happy with the current audience of the language, and don't wish to extend it ?
nothing wrong with that, though.
You're assuming that people who have some degree of interest in generics and aren't Go users right now will somehow and for some reason decide to avoid Go just because it lacks generics.
It's a silly assumption.
well not really. I'm saying it could be interesting to ask people that decided not to use go , the reason they choose not to, in order to expand their user base.
You're assuming that these people have anything relevant to say, particularly as they present irrational arguments to justify their fatwa on a programming language.
Meanwhile, those who are interested in exploring the language and are interested in putting it to work aren't wasting their time with irrational stances on a minor technical detail.
I use Go quite a lot, and I agree with their "irrational arguments". It seems quite dishonest to pretend that anyone who doesn't use Go because they found it too restrictive to be "wasting their time with irrational stances". It's also quite close-minded.
You're right that most Go developers aren't going to go out of their way to write a 5-page dissertation about how generics would help solve a problem they worked around, but that's not a justification for not including generics. The fact you have to write orders of magnitude more code in order to work around a lack of generics is ridiculous, and I find it frustrating every time I have to do it. Will I eventually crack and write a series of blog posts that just rant about every single fucking problem I have with Go? Maybe. But it seems quite unreasonable to only want reviews which effectively must be of the form of a coherent rant.