> But hey, at least they retracted their opinion on generics.
No, we really didn't.
Generics were acceptable to the community only because they are fully backwards compatible with existing code, and can be safely ignored if you don't need them.
Which, not at all surprising, is what most golang code still does. Because as it turns out, outside of "collections" of one sort or another, practical use cases for generics are not that easy to find. Most code written never gets to see more than one type to begin with, and more than 2 is already a stretch.
If anything, the addition of generics showcased to the larger community, how little many of the vaunted features!!!!! that people keep demanding and labeling as "essential" are actually needed for a widely accepted and excellent language.
No, we really didn't.
Generics were acceptable to the community only because they are fully backwards compatible with existing code, and can be safely ignored if you don't need them.
Which, not at all surprising, is what most golang code still does. Because as it turns out, outside of "collections" of one sort or another, practical use cases for generics are not that easy to find. Most code written never gets to see more than one type to begin with, and more than 2 is already a stretch.
If anything, the addition of generics showcased to the larger community, how little many of the vaunted features!!!!! that people keep demanding and labeling as "essential" are actually needed for a widely accepted and excellent language.