Hacker News Reader

Comment by cies | Hacker News Reader

Yes. But null-safety is absolute on the top (as it is soooo hard, maybe even impossible, to add later).

Generics... Well, I just come from a Elm gig (knowing Haskell/C++/Java/Kotlin/Ruby) and I must say I was not too bothered with the lack of generics there.

View on HN

Wait, doesn't Elm have parametric polymorphism like other ML-family languages? That's just as powerful as most languages' generics, and with a lot fewer brackets.

> Well, I just come from a Elm gig and I must say I was not too bothered with the lack of generics there.

Elm has generics.

Really? Why then there's List.map, Maybe.map, Array.map, and I have to select one of them? Is that not what generics would fix?

> Is that not what generics would fix?

No. That would be fixed by having something akin to typeclasses, traits or interfaces.

Elm's List, Maybe and Array are all defined using a generic type parameter.

There is a terminology issue here, with "generic" being overloaded to mean different things. Parametric polymorphism is what Go is adding. You'd like to see something like ad hoc polymorphism in Elm, like type-classes in Haskell. But neither of those should be confused with the datatype generic programming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_polymorphism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_polymorphism

https://wiki.haskell.org/Generics

No, it fixes that you don't have to chose between ListOfInts, ListOfStrings and ListOfListOfArrayOfInt.

BTW, one doesn't have to chose between them in Go either, but only because there are under-the-hood generics for the native types, that are only accessible to the language designers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com