Hacker News Reader

Comment by win311fwg | Hacker News Reader

> generics (something that I still haven't used beyond the tutorials) took an age as well

Only about a year from when the Haskell guys lent their expertise in designing it and it landing in a release. That's actually fairly quick given that it was a pretty significant change under the hood and constrained by only two releases annually.

The Go team was always clear that they didn't have the necessary capabilities internally, despite a lot of failed efforts trying anyway, and were relying on the open source community to lend a hand. Unfortunately, open source doesn't mean open willingness to contribute. It turns out that for all the experts on HN, posting "go doesn't have generics lol" was preferable to helping out.

View on HN

Those guys were the same that helped out with generics in Java, they even published a book in 2006,

https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/gj.html

Before Featherweight Go, there was Featherweight Java.

So maybe a language designed in 2012 (v 1.0 release year), should learn from history instead of hand-waving it away as needless fluff.

> In retrospect, we were biased too much by experience with C++ without concepts and Java generics. We would have been well-served to spend more time with CLU and C++ concepts earlier.

https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/go2dra...

And not all on the team were convinced even after Featherweight Go, here Rob Pike,

> I think the transition to getting polymorphism into the language through generics is has still got some years to work through there's still things that don't quite work right

https://youtu.be/yE5Tpp2BSGw?t=2134

> instead of hand-waving it away as needless fluff.

If you go back and watch the original Go announcement it was made abundantly clear that they believed Go did need generics but that they didn't have the expertise to do it. Yes it is true that the book was already written on it, but that doesn't mean anyone on the Go team was familiar with it or had the time to become familiar with it. Programming languages do not require gods to design them. Imperfect humans can too.

The experts on HN who know all the ins and outs of generics could have contributed but, you know, shitposting "go doesn't have generics lol" was a better use of their time. There are so many hours in the day.

Gonuts is full of content that they were not keen in generics, in fact gccgo has been abandoned, and I expect it to eventually follow gcj and be removed from GCC.

Go culture is not welcoming to experts contributions, Rust, D, C#, Swift and others, heck even Java, are more open arms to language designers.

Nobody is keen about language features. Each new one adds complexity. That isn't the same as failing to recognize a need, though. And we know the Go team recognized the need as they clearly kept working on generics all the way from the very beginnings up until the Haskell muscle showed up. The receipts are there. The results just weren't good, as one would expect from a team who weren't shy to say that they didn't have the expertise necessary.

You'd think one of the HN experts would have shown up to offer that expertise, but I guess there was a lot of "go doesn't have generics lol" needing to get out.

Some did try, and were welcomed with stones, clubs and pitchforks, until leadership had to reach out for help, from the same team that designed Java generics, years before Go v1.0 came to materialise.

The Haskell muscle had proven their skills already with Featherweight Java, in 2006.

The same people who were working on generics in Go prior to v1 were also still there to help out when it eventually landed, so whatever stones, clubs, and pitchforks you saw weren't compelling enough to scare one away from making it happen. Not that anyone would expect them to. Meaningless distractions don't get in the way when doing something is worthwhile.

But obviously "go doesn't have generics lol" comments on HN were even more important. Just think of what would have happened if that wasn't repeated multiple times daily for years and that effort was put into getting Go generics into place much sooner. Count your lucky stars or something.

To offer help, the receiving end must be open to take it.

And there was plenty of effort given by others who also weren't experts. There was no lack of trying within a sea of incapable people. Unfortunately, that wasn't what the project needed. It already had a team full of blub developers, it being a language for them.

It is after all a language designed for not smart people, as per Rob Pike own words.

The key point here is our programming language designers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school…

Robert Griesemer, the youngest of Go's original authors (the other two are Rob Pike and Ken Thompson) was 45 when they started working on Go.

Haskell guys? Got a reference to this? That’s news to me.

I'm not sure about the haskell association, but search for "Featherweight Go"

Thanks for the pointer. The reference makes sense now, as Philip Wadler is a coauthor of that paper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com