> 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.

  * type-safe containers (linked lists, trees, etc.)
  * higher order functions (map, reduce, filter, etc.)
  * database adapters (i.e. something like `sql.NullColumn<T>` instead of half a dozen variations on `sql.NullWhatever`)
  * 99% of functions that accept or return `interface{}`

For loops do not get the job done easily enough. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to do contortions in order to count backwards inclusive down to zero with an unsigned int. With a proper iterator API, it's trivial.

Furthermore, for loops are a pain to optimize. They encourage use of indices everywhere, which results in heroic efforts needed to eliminate bounds checks, effort that is largely unnecessary with higher level iterators. Detecting the loop trip count is a pain, because the loop test is reevaluated over and over, and the syntax encourages complicated loop tests (for example, fetching the length of a vector over and over instead of caching it). For loop trip count detection is one of the major reasons why signed overflow is undefined in C, and it's a completely self-inflicted wound.

I'm generally of the opinion nowadays that adding a C-style for loop to a language is a design mistake.

There was a nice paper at this years POPL which (in my opinion) allows you to substantiate this claim.

The paper is "Stream Fusion to Completeness", by Oleg Kiselyov, Aggelos Biboudis, Nick Palladinos, and Yannis Smaragdakis. The actual question in the paper is how to compile away stream operations to imperative programs using for/while loops and temporary variables. On the other hand, if we look at the output of the compiler we can see how complex it is to express natural stream programs using only for/while loops.

For instance, even very simple combinations of map/fold/filter create while loops and make it difficult to detect the loop trip count afterwards (in fact, you need an analysis just to detect that the loop terminates). If you combine several such streams with zip, the resulting code makes a nice entry for obfuscated code contests. Finally, if you use flatMap the resulting control flow doesn't fit into a for/while loop at all...

So for/while loops are not simpler than stream processing primitives and unless you explicitly introduce temporaries (i.e., inline the definition of map/fold/etc.) you quickly end up with very complicated control flow.

If you want to show something else is easier to use, you'd have to do a user study, and even that's not going to be universally applicable since it depends on the previous experiences of the user population being tested. It's why these things tends to be debated as a matter of taste.

They all show that the natural expression is through declarative programming and that for loop are never what comes naturally.

Regardless, these are simply cases of people writing bad code, and nobody is claiming map/reduce/filter is a panacea for bad code.

Functional composition/chaining works best with small, well-named single purpose functions that compose/chain together into more complex functionality (with appropriate names at every non-trivial level of chaining/composition). You can't easily compose/chain imperative loops this way (at least not without wrapping them in functions that take data, and returns transformed data, by which point you might as well use map/reduce/filter to transform the data to begin with to get rid of the impedance mismatch).

There is a germ of truth here - sometimes list comprehensions make code harder to understand than if you just wrote an if statement or a loop - but you've overgeneralized. I don't think anyone on the core Go team seriously thinks that map and reduce are bad ideas when Google relies so heavily on MapReduce (and its successors).

It's not incomprehensible, it's just phrased a different way from what you're used to.

A lot of programming boils down to mutating local or global state, by executing lines of code -- each of which mutating the contents of some variable somewhere -- in order, one at a time. But this is just one style of programming, and is not the only one. When using map, filter, reduce etc. we, instead, construct a path through which data flows, where each line modifies some aspect of the data, as it flows through the path. This is essentially what Functional Reactive Programming is, although you can get the same effect using a pure language and function composition.

What would be incomprehensible?

As opposed to code that just uses chained map, reduce etc as opposed to nested or sequential for loops.

One is a difference is skill, clarity etc, the other is a difference in style (imperative vs fp).

Python's comprehensions are among the most powerful, easy to use, concise capabilities of any language I've used. You can address the abuse issue with coding guidelines: no more than 2 deep. Done.

How easily are they abused?

Because it's the opinion of the programming community, including the brightest programmers out there, that FP, and map, reduce and filter are totally fine and dandy.

> Using `interface{}` to temporarily escape the type system

tbh if you program Go correctly, you use interface{} pretty rarely.

It's a bit like saying "if you program C correctly, you use (void *) pretty rarely.". that's not the case, Go maintainers themselves keep on adding API with interface {} everywhere. Are you saying they are not programming Go correctly?

Rust has generics and traits/typeclasses, and the result is my Rust code uses those features extensively and the presence of those features greatly influences the designs. Similarly, when I write Java, I design with inheritance in mind. I would have trouble showing real world use cases for inheritance in my Rust code, because Rust doesn't have inheritance and so the designs don't use inheritance-based patterns.

Essentially, how does one provide real world evidence for the utility of something that's only hypothetical? You can't write working programs in hypothetical Go 2-with-generics, so examples are always going to be hypothetical or drawn from other languages where those tools do exist.

Users who have heavy need for genetics have already moved away from Go.

They sure are useful to readability and maintainability.

[0] which can obviously be used to replace looping constructs anyway

On the latter part I'm fairly cynical these days, since I'm presently on a team where the lead embraced a Scala-DSL heavy, functional design and the net result has been a total loss of project velocity because when we need to prototype a new requirement, the push back has been paraphrasing "oh, could you not do that in <core product> and handle it somewhere else?" - so we end up with a bunch of shell scripts cobbled together to do so.

Of course nothing can't be done without them. With or without generics or inheritance the language is still Turing complete.

The question is, do you want to write type safe code? which is memory safe? which has bound-checked array? or not? Assembly makes all that stuff unnecessary as well. This is not a good argument, especially when Go std lib is getting all these type unsafe API using interface {} everywhere. That is precisely what generics are for, to allow writing parametric functions (sort) or type safe containers instead of sync.Map like in the std lib.

If you care about type safety and code re-use then generic programming is a necessity. What do you think append, copy or delete are? these are generic functions. All people are asking is the ability to define their own in a type safe fashion.

Are these use cases Russ Cox don't know they exist?

It doesn't seem to me that there's a shortage of people pointing out real-world use cases at all, and I'm looking from the outside in.

basically it goes like: > If google isn't screaming about it, it's not important. > If google has a workaround, then it's fixed.

Choosing is hard, and while they could improve I think the Go maintners have done a pretty good job, and are willing to admit mistakes.

In Rust, this was handled the right way. The Result type forces you to at least actively dispose of the error.

In Go, it's just way too easy to leave an error unhandled.

Sort of: by default, an unused value of the `Result` type produces a compiler warning. Like all warnings in Rust, this category of warnings can be promoted to a hard error for all users with a single line of code. And unlike other languages where compiler warnings are uniformly ignored, there is a strong culture in Rust of making sure that code compiles warning-free (largely due to the fact that the compiler is rather selective about what to issue warnings about, to help avoid useless false positives and warning spew (there is a separate project, called "clippy", for issuing more extensive warnings)).

In both cases I have to either write a handler immediately after the call, or I'm going to fail and toss it back up to whoever called me.

Errors-should-be-values has always seemed like a bizarre statement to me. Like, fine, but they're still errors - their core feature will be that I stop what I want to do and handle them. And in that regard I much prefer exceptions (at least Python style exceptions) because most of the time I just want to throw the relevant context information up to some level of code which knows enough to make a decision on handling them. The thing I really want is an easy way to know all the ways something can fail, and what information I'm likely to get from that, so I can figure out how I want to handle them.

The main difference as I see it is that in Rust, you can't get the success value if there's an error, so you're forced by the compiler to handle any error if there is one. With tuples, you're free to just look at one element regardless of the value of the other.

Look, even allowing type aliases to become part of an interface declaration would be a HUGE win. You can't currently write portable arbitrary data structures without reimplementing them with a code generator. Ugh!

Yeah, I find it strange how languages are trending at a glacially slow pace to having the same features that strongly typed functional programming languages have had for literally decades. It's like we're going to be using actual functional programming languages eventually but the only way it'll happen is to very slowly change what everyone is currently using in small steps.

Static types, immutability, type inference and non-null variables are popular design choices right now but they've been in functional programming languages for nearly 50 years. I'm still waiting for inductive types and pattern matching to turn up in a mainstream language and seeing them talked about like they're new concepts.

Source: got to interact with the community between the C# 1.0 and 4.0 releases (2.0 added generics, 3.0 added lambdas, neither feature was considered of any use to a Productive Developer up to the day when Microsoft officially announced them).

That isn't true inside Microsoft. Many of the people who work on C# are the same academic wanks that work on Scala or F#. C# has a different user base from those languages though, so they still have to be careful what they add to the language, and many language features are planned 3 or 4 versions in advance.

No, that was not intended as included in "the C# community". Hell, SPJ used to work at Microsoft (he may still do, but he used to).

> the people who work on C# are the same academic wanks that work on Scala or F#

I'm sure you mean wonks, but I liked the typo.

> C# has a different user base from those languages though, so they still have to be careful what they add to the language, and many language features are planned 3 or 4 versions in advance.

I have no issue with the evolution of C# rate or otherwise, only with a number of its users.

C# has a specific audience, and the language designers cater to them pretty well. I really really like C# as a language, and I don't mind delayed access to certain features that I already like from other languages.

You probably have a beef with some C# users not because of their choice of language, but with the field they work in (primarily enterprise) tends to breed a certain kind of attitude that other techies don't like very much.

(says a man planning to purchase his 5th Macbook Pro later this year)

There are good reasons to use C#, so when it gets a new feature that other languages have had for years, well, it is newsworthy.

Now when will javascript get pattern matching?

C# and Java are slowly catching up :)

Human behaviour is strange when you expect rationality. Sour grapes is such a pervasive cognitive bias that one has to wonder why it exists since it's obviously irrational. I think it's likely that it presents a major advantage in the psychology of group cohesion.

40, nearing on 45:

> Milner, R., Morris, L., Newey, M. "A Logic for Computable Functions with reflexive and polymorphic types", Proc. Conference on Proving and Improving Programs, Arc-et-Senans (1975)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8756683

They just weren't ready to make any of the significant tradeoffs other languages have to do in order to support them.

Whether that's a good outcome, I'm not fully sure - but there's definitely a lot of research in that area.

The idea that the monomorphization/boxing tradeoff can be dodged by not having generics in the language is a fallacy. In Go, today, you as a programmer already have to decide which side of the tradeoff you want every time you write something that could be generic. It's just that the compiler doesn't help you at all.

And even that is not the whole story, just because you reify generics does not mean you have to monomorphise everything, Microsoft's C# compiler only monomorphises value types.

Also Go may box in other contexts than interfaces depending on escape analysis (according to https://golang.org/doc/faq#stack_or_heap).

Does that mean writing a separate version of an algorithm for each type or types that you want it to handle? Like a sort for ints, a sort for floats, etc., even if the logic is otherwise the same (or almost)?

Not a PL design or theory expert, just interested.

There is also the approach taken by Swift, where values of generic type are unboxed in memory, and reified type metadata is passed out of band. There's no mandatory monomorphization.

Hybrid approaches in which the compiler (or JIT!) decides whether to monomorphize or use vtables are also possible.

Also the Swift optimizer can clone and specialize generic functions within a module, eliminating the overhead of indirection through reified metadata.

The compiler specializing/monomorphizing as an optimisation shows that Swift has a hybrid approach that tries to balance the trade-offs of both (like many other languages, like Haskell, and, with explicit programmer direction, Rust), but the two schemes still fall into the broad categories of monomorphizing vs dictionary passing, not something fundamentally different.

Yeah as pointed out in that very thread by pjmlp:

    As usual, it lacks discussion about generics in:
    Eiffel
    Ada
    Modula-3
    D
    MLton
    .NET
    Rust
    Haskell
    OCaml
    Sather
    BETA
    CLU

> They just weren't ready to make any of the significant tradeoffs other languages have to do in order to support them.

Ah yes, the ever so convenient but never actually clarified "tradeoffs", which only ever happen for generics but oddly enough apparently don't happen for any other feature.

> there's definitely a lot of research in that area.

That there is, would be nice if Go's designers ever bothered actually using it.

I don't know exactly what the problem is for Go. There are tradeoffs, e.g., just with the type system: impredicative, stratified or predicative quantification, implicit subtyping or explicit type instantiation, value restrictions, variance handling for mutable inductive types, Hindley-Milner or bidirectional typechecking, etc. There are more tradeoffs with the implementation. Fortunately, these are all well understood by now.

However, it is also true that many mainstream languages famously got generics wrong. What's most infurating about this situation is that a lot of research just gets ignored. If the question is really "should Go have generics whose design is based on C++ templates and/or Java generics" then the only sane answer is a resounding no.

The numeric tower of lisps is the canonical use case of what generic functions are good for.

Smalltalk, the second greatest language after Lisp, is also good example.

You realize this post is talking about Go right? /s

Generics and Go: https://github.com/stefantalpalaru/golib-nim

1. Look at uses of cast operators in a codebase. How many of those would be eliminated by making the surrounding operation generic?

2. Go through the language spec and see how many features could be moved out of the language and into the core library if generics were supported.

It seems to me to be the same "Generics is some foreign concept we just heard of, and we're not sure how to implement them in Go yet, but we'll consider it if we chance upon some magical optimal way" that has been the official party line of Go since forever...

Even the "we are asking you for proposals" part has been there since a decade or so...

My specific problem when i realized it was an actual problem was when i tried to connect to a sql databse and working with a proper ORM.

I would need one for each and every struct(table).

These days there is a tool that can generate all those struct methods: https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler

So from the ORM perspective we (as the community) have worked around it.

Now Repository<T> and for us around 200,000 lines of code are gone and only one narrow set of tests to execute.

    class Collection<T implements Entity> {
        void insert(T entity) {
            String vals = entity.props.map(escapeSql).join(",");
            String qs = entity.props.map(x => "?").join(",");
            PreparedStatement p = db.prepare("insert into %s (%s) values (%s);", this.tableName, qs, vals);
            db.submit(p);
        }
    }

This code (okay I made the use line up because it's not on the website and I'm lazy, you do need one though):

  use some::stuff::for::the::dsl;
  
  let versions = Version::belonging_to(krate)
      .select(id)
      .order(num.desc())
      .limit(5);
  let downloads = version_downloads
      .filter(date.gt(now - 90.days()))
      .filter(version_id.eq(any(versions)))
      .order(date)
      .load::<Download>(&conn)?;

Thanks to generics, all of this checking is computed at compile time. The end resulting code is the equivalent of

  let results = handle.query("SELECT version_downloads.*
    WHERE date > (NOW() - '90 days')
      AND version_id = ANY(
        SELECT id FROM versions
          WHERE crate_id = 1
          ORDER BY num DESC
          LIMIT 5
      )
    ORDER BY date");

You can absolutely create an ORM _without_ generics, but it cannot give you the same level of guarantees at compile time, with no overhead.

How (well) does diesel deal with migrations? I've seen other ORMs fall down the stairs trying to deal with schema modification over time.

It also heavily relies on generic types to ensure that everything is well-formed, and to provide zero overhead.

There's two variants on a single way: basically, a "schema.rs" file contains your schema. You can write it out, and (with the help of migrations) it will update it when you create a new migration, or, you can have it literally connect to the DB at compile time and introspect the schema.

> Also, type checking is negligible from a performance perspective, so I the "zero overhead" is of minimal interest.

Ah, but it's not "the type checking is fast", it's the "diesel can generate hyper-optimized outputs that don't do runtime checks". Like, as an interesting example, Diesel can (well, will be, this has been designed but not implemented yet) actually be _faster_ than a literal SQL statement. Why? The SQL literal is in a string. That means, at runtime, your DB library has to parse the string, check that it's correct, convert it to the databases' wire format, and then ship it off. Thanks to strong generics, since the statements are checked at compile time, none of those steps need to be done at runtime; the compiler can pre-compile that DSL into postgres' wire format directly.

The reason this hasn't actually been implemented yet is that it's admittedly a tiny part of the overall time, and the Diesel maintainers have more pressing work to do. I use it as an example because it's an easier one to understand than some of the other shenanigans that Diesel does internally. It couldn't remove this kind of run-time overhead without generics.

Few typesystems come close to that (Coq is one of the few languages where the system might be advanced enough), but generally you want to completely remove entire classes of errors.

How (well) does diesel deal with migrations? I've seen other ORMs fall down the stairs trying to deal with schema modification over time.

"diesel migraiton run" will run all pending migrations, there's revert/redo as well. "diesel migration generate" can generate these files and directories for you; it doesn't yet (that I know of) have helpers to write the SQL though (like Rails does for its migrations).

On deploy, it runs the migrations first https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/thanks/blob/master/buil...

I believe there are some interesting improvements coming down the line in the future, but for now, it works pretty well.

Nah, this is pretty much the same answer they've been giving all along, lots of handwaving about how generics are so cutting edge that no one can figure out how to use them effectively yet ("we just can't wrap our heads around this crazy idea!")

In other words, don't count on them in Go 2.

It seems like you’d have valuable feedback given that it’s a “showstopper” for you.

- performance wise: no dynamic dispatch, means no virtual function call, means faster code.

- type safety: let say I want a data structure that can store anything but everything in it must be the same type. You just can't do that with Go's current type system without introspection (which is cumbersome and really slow).

Generics already exists in Go : maps, slices and channels and generic, and it was mandatory for performance reason. The problem of not having generics is that the community can't build its own implementation of useful data structures : for instance, until the last release Go lacked a thread-safe map. That's fine, let's use a library for that … Nope, can't implement that because, “no generics”.

Generics are rarely useful in your own code, but they allow people to create good abstractions in their libraries. Without generics, the ecosystem growth is limited.

No, you can't, because generics don't provide the key feature of interfaces: run-time dynamism.

You could make a case that static polymorphism and dynamic polymorphism could be accomplished by a single mechanism, as traits do in Rust, but you can't say generics are "better" than interfaces, since they solve a different set of problems, with different implementation strategies, despite related theoretical foundations.

> The problem of not having generics is that the community can't build its own implementation of useful data structures

This is not true either, although it is true that it is harder to do this sort of thing in Go, the result may in fact not be as fast as you can achieve with monomorphisation, and you may have to write more code by hand.

The "trick" is the Go model is to provide an interface (which yes, potentially unnecessarily uses a dynamic mechanism) to implement indirect operations. For example the Swap function of https://golang.org/pkg/sort/#Interface enables https://golang.org/pkg/container/heap/#Interface - which is a reusable data structure. Compiler-level static-generics for slices and arrays, combined with indirecting through array indexes, enables you to avoid boxing when instantiating the heap interface. The data structure can be instantiated with an interface once, so there is no dynamic lookup for heap operations, but there is still a double indirect call.

Yes, this is less convenient than proper generics, but this doesn't mean you can't do these things.

Furthermore, I've never actually needed to do this outside of sorting (which is, absolutely, is annoying) in large projects. Almost every time I need a specialized data structure, I usually need it for performance reasons, and so hand-specializing for my needs tends to be worthwhile anyway.

> Generics are rarely useful in your own code, but they allow people to create good abstractions in their libraries.

I'd like to see something like templates or generics for Go, but I definitely don't want Java-style "fake" generics without code specialization. Furthermore, I found that the vast majority of generics-heavy libraries back in my C# days were more trouble than they are worth, despite meaningful opportunities for better performance with value types. Copy/paste almost always resulted in a better outcome.

Yep, assembly is less convenient than Go, but it doesn't mean you can't write programs using assembly.

i almost feel this is like asking bjarne what use cases there are for 'classes' in c-with-classes. it's a structural language change that (depending on implementation details) can have sweeping ramifications on how one writes code.

type parameterization allows for the expression of algorithms, idioms and patterns wholly or partially separate from concrete type details. i'm sure others can better sell the topic though.

What use cases do they need other than the extremely large body of public knowledge on the matter, and why would one more example change anyone's mind?

To me this represents the epitome of the insular and outwardly hostile attitude that the Go team has toward good ideas elsewhere in the CS world. Would it really make a difference to the team if I or anyone else were to hunt down specific examples and present them with problems solved with generics and stronger type systems?

I doubt it.

... but, hey, just to indulge you, a few off the top of my head:

- Generic containers in libraries (aka not built-in)

- Parametricity to restrict user-supplied implementations of interfaces; not quite as valuable in a language with casts, etc., but still reasonably valuable.

- To give a sound account for the currently-magic built-in types.

That should be enough, frankly, but I'm sure I could come up with more if I were to spend 5 more minutes on it...

Can we stop pretending that they don't know of any compelling use cases now?

The Go team have been long criticized for choosing the option that fits Google, but not the rest of the world. This seems like their attempt to think about what others are doing with the language, beyond their insular experience, so they don't end up with something that fits Google perfectly but falls apart everywhere else.

If they don't take the time to learn how people intend to use generics in Go, the best solution for Google, and Google alone, is what we will get.

It's not unreasonable to ask "how do we implement this in the best way?", but I'll note a) that's not what was asked, and b) I have a hard time believing that code at Google is so incredibly "special" that they need a special kind of generics. Also, if Google is such a unique snowflake why not ask the Google people directly rather than the "Go community"?

They asked for use cases from a wide range of people to ensure they implement it in the best way. Subtly different, but essentially the same request.

> I have a hard time believing that code at Google is so incredibly "special" that they need a special kind of generics.

I didn't say they need special generics. I said the approach that works best at Google may not be the best approach for the population at large. If Google is best served by C++-style generics, while the community as a whole would be better served by Haskell-style generics, why just jump in and do it the C++ way before seeing how others might want to use it?

> Also, if Google is such a unique snowflake why not ask the Google people directly rather than the "Go community"?

Because they are trying to avoid the mistake of using one datapoint like Go has struggled with in the past? They know what works in Google, but that doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. See: Package dependencies, among many.

Phrasing is important, and obviously (from the reactions of me and others in the thread) the phrasing was way off and perceived as condescending and lazy.

> I didn't say they need special generics. I said the approach that works best at Google may not be the best approach for the population at large. If Google is best served by C++-style generics, while the community as a whole would be better served by Haskell-style generics, why just jump in and do it the C++ way before seeing how others might want to use it?

OK, so you said they don't need a special generics, but then say that they do. I must not be understanding what you're trying to say. (If this is about choosing trade-offs, then see the other poster who talked about trade-offs. Executive summary: Not doing generics is also a trade-off.)

Also: ASK GOOGLE.

> Because they are trying to avoid the mistake of using one datapoint like Go has struggled with in the past? They know what works in Google, but that doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. See: Package dependencies, among many.

You can't have it both ways. Either Google is important enough to it in a way that works for them, or the community is more important and they get to choose.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. I think we may be seeing this from viewpoints that are so different that it's pointless to continue.

I'm not sure how to argue constructively with someone who says "I'm not saying X, but..." and then immediately states a rephrasing of "X". I'm sure that's not what you think you are doing, but that's the way I'm seeing it, FWIW.

Maybe, but I don't know that we should be attacking someone's poor communication ability. I'm sure I've misunderstood at least one of your points too. Let's just focus on what was actually asked for: Use-case examples.

> OK, so you said they don't need a special generics, but then say that they do.

There isn't an all encompassing 'generics'. Generics is a broad category of different ways to achieve reusable statements across varying types, in a type-safe manner. To try and draw an analogy, it is kind of like functional and imperative programming. Both achieve the function of providing a way to write programs, but the paradigms differ greatly. Each with their own pros and cons.

If imperative programming is the best choice for Google, that doesn't mean the community wouldn't be better served by functional programming, so to speak. And when it comes to generics, there are quite a few different paradigms that can be used, and not easily mixed-and-matched. They are asking for use-cases to determine which generics paradigm fits not only the needs at Google, but the needs everywhere.

> Also: ASK GOOGLE.

The Go team is Google. They have asked Google. Now they are asking everyone else. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.

> Either Google is important enough to it in a way that works for them, or the community is more important and they get to choose.

In the past Google was seen as the most important, and they have been widely criticized for it. This is them moving in a direction that favours the community. And they are still being criticized for it... Funny how that works.

Yes, thank you. Everybody in this thread already knows that. PICK ONE.

(EDIT: I should also add: Since Go is structually typed and has mutable variables, that should be a good indication of what to do and what not to do. See e.g. Java arrays, variance and covarince.)

> If imperative programming is the best choice for Google, that doesn't mean the community wouldn't be better served by functional programming, so to speak. And when it comes to generics, there are quite a few different paradigms that can be used, and not easily mixed-and-matched. They are asking for use-cases to determine which generics paradigm fits not only the needs at Google, but the needs everywhere.

And now you're trying to bring imperative vs. functional into this?

I think IHBT... and this really is my last comment in this thread. Have a good $WHATEVER.

They are picking one, based on the use-cases that will be given to them in the near future. I don't understand what your point is here.

> Since Go is structually typed and has mutable variables, that should be a good indication of what to do and what not to do.

That may be true, but the worst case scenario is that they learn nothing from the examples they get. You don't have to provide any if you feel it is a useless endeavour. If it gives them comfort, so be it.

> And now you're trying to bring imperative vs. functional into this?

It wasn't clear if you understood what I meant by there being different ways to provide generics. I struggled to write it as eloquently as I had hoped and the analogy was meant to bridge what gaps may have existed.

It's almost like communication can be difficult. Where have I see that before? Hmm...

> It's almost like communication can be difficult.

We can agree about that! :)

> Where have I see that before? Hmm...

Not sure what you mean (ironically?).

Have a good night :).

"Find us examples and show us so we can ponder this further" is incredibly condescending after we did that 5 years ago and they decided to stall (or to use the author's term, "wait") on the issue. Honestly I think it might be too late for generics to be added, because the large body of existing interfaces aren't generic and likely would have a very high transition cost.

It's not rocket science.

And because it's 2017.

Why do we need anything beyond assembler?

Then you'll wish you had generics. :)

I remember when Java started to have generics in 1.5. It was very hard to go back to 1.4 after having used that. I feel that I just can't program without them any longer.

It's a small superset of Go that allows you to call map/filter/reduce methods on any slice. It's not true generics (you can't define your own generic functions or types) but it covers the most common use case for me: declarative data processing.

If Go wants to be more sophisticated, there are other sophisticated languages I can use out there like Haskell, Rust, F#, Scala, etc. The problem I have learned in my career is "sophistication" usually gets in the way of getting things done because now you have all these clever developers full of hubris creating these novel implementations that nobody else in the world understands, and your project fails but hey -- at least you have a dope, terse, generic implementation -- totally rad.

Depending how they're implemented, you might not have to use them (even via libraries). Not using the language altogether is a bit dramatic.

This is my beef with JavaScriot these days... They introduced a slew of new, in my opinion insane, control structures, and while I can avoid them in my code, they are still slowly polluting my dependencies, and adding obscure runtime requirements for my projects.

This is such a troll'ish statement, but I'll respond anyways because maybe you actually are just that uninformed. Without generics any number of libraries that utilize generic function blocks - Func [1] in C#, Callable [2] in Java, etc., and do things like return the function's type parameter as a method result, would not be possible. This is exceedingly common, at least in libraries. If you want to know how common, let me refer you to my friend http://google.com.

Just because something isn't valuable to you, personally, doesn't mean it's not valuable. As in all aspects of life, not everyone is you.

1. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb549151(v=vs.110)....

2. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurre...

a) generic programming is a new thing

b) any of those people you mention aren't using go for some things and other things where this feature is desired

c) that the feature will 'at best' be at level X

d) that level X won't be enough to satisfy some use cases

and a whole host of other things, not least of which the fact that go itself was invented to suit some purpose after other languages existed, and has been successful for many users

Any new language is already playing catch-up to reach the state of the art. Go is 10 years old and in those 10 years has made astonishingly little progress at implementing basic features such as error handling, because the designers cannot escape their bubble.

The most sensible thing to do is to kill Go, not to improve it. The root problem is not the lack of this or that feature, but the bizarre beliefs of the people running the project.

Care to expand this? It's pretty clear that you don't find Go suitable for your own use cases, but I've found it to be an extremely productive language, despite the fact that it may have a couple of warts.

See also all of the "container" portion of the stdlib: https://golang.org/pkg/container/

All of those should be generic, but aren't.

Clearly there's already sufficient demand for generic collections just based on the stdlib and the fact sync.Map was seen as needed.

I think even more damning then "these should be generic" is that there should be more of them. The real problem is the lack of generics inhibits the introduction of more data structures because they are hard to use.

It is true that arrays and maps/hashes take you a long way, but there's a lot of other useful data structures in the world. And despite the fact they may look easy at first, data structure code tends to be notoriously difficult to write both correctly and with high performance.

They aren't because the prevailing attitude is "what do you need generics for? Just do a cast!"

The issue is the Go developers are unwilling to consider generics until someone can come up with a problem that absolutely, positively cannot be solved without generics. And of course there isn't one.

Go is turing complete already, so all problems are already able to be solved. :)

[1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/RKymTuSC... [2]: https://github.com/robpike/filter

The Go team needs to stop trying to control what people do with their language. If people come up with crazy implementations, it's their own problem. It's up to the Go community to provide alternatives to prevent those crazy implementations from becoming standardized in Go programming culture. Refusing to implement generics because programmers might abuse them is paternalistic and counterproductive.

Some people are turned away from C++ after seeing random bits of crazy language/template misuse, although when used sanely C++ could've served them nicely for their job.

Same thing is going to happen to Swift very soon.

https://engineering.kitchenstories.io/comfortable-api-reques...

Those function signatures are definitely not... self-documenting, I'd say.

In C++, on the other hand, separate compilation of template for each instantiation is effectively part of language semantics, because it has numerous observable effects.

/jk 2

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.

But even so, even with all the shortcomings, once Java 5 was released people migrated to usage of generics, even if generics in Java are totally optional by design.

My guess to why that happens is that the extra type safety and expressivity is definitely worth it in a language and without generics that type system ends up staying in your way. I personally can tolerate many things, but not a language without generics.

You might as well use a dynamic language. Not Python of course, but something like Erlang would definitely fit the bill for Google's notion of "systems programming".

The Go designers are right to not want to introduce generics though, because if you don't plan for generics from the get go, you inevitably end up with a broken implementation due to backwards compatibility concerns, just like Java before it.

But just like Java before it, Go will have half-assed generics. It's inevitable.

Personally I'm sad because Google had an opportunity to introduce a better language, given their marketing muscle. New mainstream languages are in fact a rare event. They had an opportunity here to really improve the status quo. And we got Go, yay!

I've mostly moved on to Clojure for programming backend services. I still use Go for the occasional small utility program due to its speed and ease of deployment, though.

I've never once even considered the fact that I might need generics because I've never run into an unsolvable problem or an extremely inelegant engineering solution. I see a lot of people claiming that the lack of generics is a big problem but no one is actually showing a concrete case where generics are necessary.

C doesn't have generics but we never have this discussion when we talk about C.

That is a trivial example where generics help. And yes, the endless boxing and runtime type assertion does make your code slower eventually (see the comment from the libcuckoo authors).

This is one of the reasons why the container and sort stdlb libraries are such a joke. They're not generic so they have to special case every different type. With generics, the entire sort package would just be a function that takes []Ordinal and sorts it. Container would similarly only require one implementation of each data structure (because they would be generic).

I find it hard to believe that you've programmed "scores of Go" and you've never hit any of these issues. I also have programmed plenty of Go, and these problems are just frustrating.

But again, I still severely doubt you've never run into a problem with Go's lack of generics. I ran into it after about 3 months of working with Go. Maybe you didn't find the work-arounds problematic, but that doesn't mean that the original limitation (no generics) doesn't cause problems. You just choose to accept the work-arounds as the "right way" of doing things.

If you haven't already, I would recommend looking at Rust or another modern language that has generics to see what sort of benefits you can get out of it that you can't directly get with Go. Personally the fact that if T implements an interface I won't let you use []T as []I is pretty silly IMO. Rust lets you do that with the From trait, and you can even do it even more generically with the From trait using a generic T.

Sure it does, a light weight version was introduced in C11.

http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/generic

Besides, C gets an excuse because the language was designed before generics were even invented, and with pre-processor macros is it possible to implement a poor man's generic system.

So, at runtime, Go 1 code needs to be able to work with Go 2 types. That will impose some restrictions, I imagine.

Interesting. Are there any other languages where that is allowed? I'm assuming that by "codebase" you mean all the code that gets compiled into one program or library (for compiled languages), or is part of one program or library (for interpreted languages). And I don't mean the case where only a common subset of Lang X v1 features and Lang X v2 features are used in the same codebase (because in that case, there is no issue). That latter case is possible, for example, in Python, and probably some many languages too. In fact by the definition of the case, it should be possible in all languages.

>>Interesting. Are there any other languages where that is allowed?<<

C / C++

Perl 5/6

The various language feature pragmas in Haskell.

Correct.

> Are there any other languages where that is allowed?

One would be Racket, a Lisp which allows you to pick a syntax flavour using the #lang directive: https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/Module_Syntax.html#%28par...

Use site variance can be really powerful when you're dealing with invariant data structures like Lists. You can then treat them like covariant or contravariant depending on a particular method call at hand.

But, I don't know of one, and maybe that's because the Go team is right, some tradeoffs need to be made, and they did, and so Go is what it is. You can't add all the other great features you want and eat the Go cake too.

Disclaimer: I'm no language design expert. Just thinking this from the fact that I've yet to hear of such a language.

What I'm not happy with is language designers seemingly ignoring the state of the art even when it comes to picking low-hanging fruit.

First, I'm not looking for a language. Programming languages are part of my field. I was making an observation rather than expressing a need. If there's a language that's not totally obscure or esoteric, I've probably written some serious code in it at some time.

Second, I know and use Scala (among other languages) and have done so since the 1.x versions, but the JVM dependency is too often a problem (and Scala Native is not yet mature).

KDE 4 was released in 2008 and it was supposed to be ported to Windows. We're in 2017 and KDE 5 is still far from being considered stable on Windows. And I'm sure you can also think of many examples of programs promised and never delivered or underdelivered.

It was ported to Windows. I cannot check the remarks about stability because I use Linux, but it sounds plausible. There's only a handful (maybe 2 or 3) developers working on Windows support in their spare-time AFAIK. I would guess that KDE had anticipated more Windows developers joining the project as it progressed towards maturity.

That's always the problem with open-source projects: It's very hard to do planning and forecasting with a bunch of volunteers. Even if they commit to a roadmap, there will always be someone who has to step down because of private issues (new job, new child, etc.). Go is in a much better position since Google has headcount assigned to it (again, AFAIK).

(Technically, there's also Ocamlnet's multicore library, but that's too low-level for most people.)

> a functional language

Has closures.

Has pattern matching.

Has algebraic data types (however variants can't have generic parameters not present on the data type itself, but you can use trait objects to do that).

Functions that don't take &mut parameters, & parameters with types with interior mutability and don't call functions that do I/O are pure (although they may not terminate and may abort).

> optional lazy constructs

"Automatic" lazy costructs are usually unnecessary and thus almost never used, but can be implemented as a library using macros.

Can also just use closures and call them explicitly.

> great polymorphism

Has trait/typeclass polymorphism with either monomorphization or dynamic dispatch.

Structures can't be inherited, but composition gives equivalent results and is the proper way to do it.

There have been several proposals for inheriting structures though, so maybe it will be available at some point, despite not being advisable.

> statically typed with inference

Yep.

> generics

Yup.

Not higher kinded, no constant integer parameters and not variadic yet, but those features should be available in the future.

> great concurrency story

Rust is the only popular language supporting safe concurrency without giving up the ability to share memory between threads.

> an efficient GC

It turns out that a GC is unnecessary, and that reference counting is enough, which is what Rust provides (although it's still relatively rarely used).

If you insist on a tracing GC, there are/have been several attempts to add it, and maybe there will be a mature one in the future.

In particular, there is a "rust-gc" crate, and Servo has a working integration with the SpiderMonkey GC, which I suppose should be possible for others to use with some work.

> compiles quickly

Work in progress (incremental compilation, more parallelization).

> self contained binaries

Yes (or optionally using shared libraries).

> simple and effective tooling which takes only seconds to setup

rustup can install the compiler and package manager in one line.

If you want an IDE, you'll have to install that too separately. Work in progress on improving IDE functionality and ease of use.

> giving you perfomance that equals java and can rival C

Performance is at least theoretically the same as C since the generated assembly code is conceptually the same (other than array bounds checking, which can be opted out from with unsafe code).

> low memory footprint

Same as C.

Rust uses glibc by default, which must be dynamically linked. It's usually the only thing that's dynamic about Rust binaries, but it does mean that compiling on on old CentOS box is a decent idea if you want a wide range of compatibility.

Alternatively, you can use MUSL, which works like this:

    $ rustup target add x86_64-unknown-linux-musl
    $ cargo build --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-musl

The default is that all Rust code is statically linked, but since you may link C code as well, that may or may not be statically linked. It's done by packages, so there's no real default. Many of them default to static and provide the option of dynamic.

That's why there's not really a guide, that's really all there is to it.

I hate generics. also, I hate exceptions.

Too many people are wanting "magic" in their software. All some people want is to write the "Happy Path" through their code to get some Glory.

If it's your pet project to control your toilet with tweets then that's fine. But if it's for a program that will run 24/7 without human intervention then the code had better be plain, filled with the Unhappy Paths and boring.

Better one hour writing "if err" than two hours looking at logs at ohshit.30am.

there's nothing magic about exceptions, too, it's that it's harder than necessary to use them correctly and that's why it's not as big of a deal to not have them in go - as evidenced by this thread.

The fact that Go has had this much success without generics is mind-boggling to me.

Go is quite similar to Limbo, by some of the same authors, how much success did it have outside AT&T?