I don't understand how not having generics is at all acceptable. But maybe that's because I come from a functional programming perspective.
I don't miss them - it's just a different way of programming but I've not ran into a problem that I couldn't overcome because they are missing.
OTOH, I've shot myself in the foot quite a few times with Generics.
Honestly, just _try_ it for longer than an exploratory session. Try to build something big with it, and see if you still miss it.
But basically lodash is my bread-and-butter. Could such a library even exist in a language without generics?
Program into a language, don't program in a language.
The functional approach is just one way to solve the problem. Also, as a side-note, when I program at home I'll often take a functional language. It's just a different way of programming and I do like FP (Haskell mainly). But Go is different, not worse or better.
Because hybrid is objectively better than only supporting one.
(We had something similar happen).
Yep. Go is a hipster language, even if you don't like it.
I don't feel like arguing over a word that has become essentially meaningless over time, but I think you have seriously misunderstood what hipster means or was once supposed to mean. Either that, or you don't really know about Go and are just judging it by its marketing's design aesthetics (Gopher, fonts etc. following a trendy googley style).
I think you're just upset about the choice of the word hipster but as with all words it's a shortcut to actual meaning. It was intended with a hint of playfulness and not intended to make you feel bad, even if you don't agree with the choice of word.
I can't even understand how you can be constructing such a statement. "In fashion" and "mainstream" are pretty synonymous to me. In consequence, the statement is contradictory. Hence, No, I am clearly not trying to say that.
> I think you're just upset about the choice of the word hipster
No I'm saying that the team behind Go is just really considerate and principled. They don't follow all the latest fads, simply because those fads are the reason why so many other languages suck and projects written in them become giant unmaintainable hairballs.
They are engineers (label them conservative if you like). Not hipsters.
Most people are totally confused by generics, i personally don't have a problem using them or not. At the end of the day, its just template metaprogramming.
Generics aren't a cure-all, they merely duplicate code and change the type. Its not much better than copy-paste and replace the type names.
Nobody ever said that.
> . Its not much better than copy-paste and replace the type names.
Yes it is. You let the compiler do the job, instead of doing it manually.
There is no difference whatsoever between the same function duplicated with different types.
Don't be obtuse, nobody ever said "Generics are a cure-all".
> There is no difference whatsoever between the same function duplicated with different types.
Yes there is, it's called polymorphism.