Plorkyeran posted:

it looks like a pretty straightforward design that isn't very powerful but good enough for a lot of use cases. pretty much exactly what you would expect go generics to be.

M31 posted:

it feels like they implemented Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics generics natively. especially since you apparently have to specify the types every time you call a generic method.

NihilCredo posted:

code:

// Addable is types that support the + operator.
type Addable interface {
	type int, int8, int16, int32, int64,
		uint, uint8, uint16, uint32, uint64, uintptr,
		float32, float64, complex64, complex128,
		string
}

fukkin

MononcQc posted:

look you can use the new feature if you type the the pledge of allegiance and swear on a bible at the top of the file, we just don’t think you’re trustworthy yet

Xarn posted:

Doesn't Rust do the same thing as C++ in regards to ABI? That is, it says "use C ABI and gently caress off" for places where you require stable and interoperable binary layout.

urea posted:

tbf, from reading the proposal, this is just a compromise to allow you to use compiler-magic generic operators with generic functions. most languages that don't have operator overloading dont even try to solve this problem afaik (C#, Java, F#).

Xarn posted:

Doesn't Rust do the same thing as C++ in regards to ABI? That is, it says "use C ABI and gently caress off" for places where you require stable and interoperable binary layout.

Sapozhnik posted:

Zlodo posted:

they got help from one of the haskell guy to design this lol

Phobeste posted:

good lord. generics without type inference is almost worse than not having generics

Sapozhnik posted:

Corba and dcom are another mess altogether. RPC to a particular instance of a stateful object on a particular server somewhere is the single worst idea to come out of the computing industry in the 90s.

taqueso posted:

How in the world did CORBA get greenlit when COBRA is right there?

Sapozhnik posted:

Distributed objects are an idea shat out in complete ignorance of the most fundamental properties of distributed systems. It is insane by modern standards, but it probably makes sense by the base and animalistic social norms of the day, back when each network service would reside on a single custom-built server and if you needed to serve more users then you would simply order a bigger server.

Suspicious Dish posted:

ok yeah sure but explain why smb windows filesharing works more often than my google drive app

urea posted:

tbf, from reading the proposal, this is just a compromise to allow you to use compiler-magic generic operators with generic functions. most languages that don't have operator overloading dont even try to solve this problem afaik (C#, Java, F#).

Kazinsal posted:

https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/go2draft-type-parameters.md

go forth and despair

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

tbqh i could go along with very limited generics, in that 90% of the usecase for generics is to make collections and collections-adjacent code typesafe. what is really dumb about the proposal is doing things like generalizing over "addable", i.e. over having an operator named '+', as if there is such a thing as code which ever should generalize over integers, floats and strings.

animist posted:

i mean haskell has the Monoid typeclass which is pretty much just Addable with some extra semantics around having associativity and an identity element. haskell is pretty silly though so your point stands

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

if they went all-in on abstract algebra they'd be in famous company yeah, but that is a moment where i think go's "the programmer is not expected to be very clever" principle actually starts being mostly appropriate. but that's not what they're doing, and their tradeoff is worse.

also, of course, haskell does not claim ieee-754 has associative addition.

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

also, of course, haskell does not claim ieee-754 has associative addition.

Destroyenator posted:

f# does some compile time generic resolution for operators and other inline-ables: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/generics/statically-resolved-type-parameters is that solving the same thing or am i misunderstanding this?

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

as if there is such a thing as code which ever should generalize over integers, floats and strings.

Subjunctive posted:

I dunno, code that’s generalized over ordering of things seems pretty useful.

rjmccall posted:

c++ having a stable abi was a recent major controversy on the committee

Athas posted:

PS: lawful algebra-inspired type classes are cool and good, and it is cool and good that (modern) Haskell puts so much emphasis on them, even if that brings the horror of having to learn new words and concepts.

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

honestly i've never seen much point in haskell's super-abstract type classes. they make sense in, like, Coq or Lean, where abstraction makes it easier to write proofs, but outside of actual formal mathematics i don't see much use. esp given that programmers aren't trained in abstract algebra / category theory, so you end up with a bazillion "monads are like bananas" blog posts that just confuse everything further

animist posted:

yeah true.

honestly i've never seen much point in haskell's super-abstract type classes. they make sense in, like, Coq or Lean, where abstraction makes it easier to write proofs, but outside of actual formal mathematics i don't see much use. esp given that programmers aren't trained in abstract algebra / category theory, so you end up with a bazillion "monads are like bananas" blog posts that just confuse everything further