Our great sponsors
proposal | genny | |
---|---|---|
46 | 6 | |
3,285 | 1,690 | |
0.6% | 0.0% | |
4.4 | 0.0 | |
about 1 month ago | over 2 years ago | |
Go | Go | |
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
proposal
-
Does Go Have Subtyping?
The conclusion is pretty weird to me.
Go does rely on monomorphization for generics, just like C++ and Rust. The only difference is that this is an implementation detail, so Go can group multiple monomorphizations without worrying about anything else [1]. This form of hybrid monomorphization is being increasingly common, GHC does that and Rust is also trying to do so [2], so nothing special for Go here.
On the other hand, explaining variance as a lifted polymorphism is---while not incorrect per se---also weird in part because a lack of variance is at worst just an annoyance. You can always make an adopter to unify heterogeneous types. Rust calls it `Box`, Go happens to call it an interface type instead. Both languages even do not allow heterogeneous concrete (or runtime) types in a single slice! So variance has no use in both languages because no concrete types are eligible for variance anyway.
I think the conclusion got weird because the term "subtyping" is being misused. Subtyping, in the broadest sense, is just a non-trivial type relation. Many languages thus have a multiple notion of subtyping, often (almost) identical to each other but sometimes not. Go in particular has a lot of them, and even some relation like "T implements U" is a straightforward record subtyping. It is no surprise that the non-uniform value representation has the largest influence, and only monomorphization schemes and hetero-to-homogeneous adapters vary in this particular group.
[1] https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...
[2] https://rust-lang.github.io/compiler-team/working-groups/pol...
- Backward Compatibility, Go 1.21, and Go 2
-
Defining interfaces in C++ with ‘concepts’ (C++20)
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...
-
Why Turborepo is migrating from Go to Rust – Vercel
Go Team wanted generics since the start. It was always a problem implementing them without severely hurting compile time and creating compilation bloat. Rust chose to ignore this problem, by relying on LLVM backend for optimizations and dead code elimination.
-
Are you a real programmer if you use VS Code? No Says OP in the byte sized drama
Hold up, did the members actually push this forward or was support just often memed about and suddenly this proposal was made: https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/43651-type-parameters.md
-
Major standard library changes in Go 1.20
As far as I can tell, the consensus for generics was "it will happen, but we really want to get this right, and it's taking time."
I know some people did the knee-jerk attacks like "Go sucks, it should have had generics long ago" or "Go is fine, it doesn't need generics". I don't think we ever needed to take those attitudes seriously.
> Will error handling be overhauled or not?
Error handling is a thorny issue. It's the biggest complaint people have about Go, but I don't think that exceptions are obviously better, and the discriminated unions that power errors in Rust and some other languages are conspicuously absent from Go. So you end up with a bunch of different proposals for Go error handling that are either too radical or little more than syntactic sugar. The syntactic sugar proposals leave much to be desired. It looks like people are slowly grinding through these proposals until one is found with the right balance to it.
I honestly don't know what kind of changes to error handling would appear in Go 2 if/when it lands, and I think the only reasonable answer right now is "wait and find out". You can see a more reasonable proposal here:
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/go2dra...
Characterizing it as a "lack of vision" does not seem fair here--I started using Rust back in the days when boxed pointers had ~ on them, and it seemed like it took Rust a lot of iterations to get to the current design. Which is fine. I am also never quite sure what is going to get added to future versions of C#.
I am also not quite sure why Go gets so much hate on Hacker News--as far as I can tell, people have more or less given up on criticizing Java and C# (it's not like they've ossified), and C++ is enough of a dumpster fire that it seems gauche to point it out.
-
Go's Future v2 and Go's Versioning
There will almost certainly not be a Go 2 in that sense. There is a Go 2 transition doc which extensively discusses what "Go 2" means. The conclusion is
-
What's the status of the various "Go 2" proposals?
As it says on that page - those were not proposals. They were draft ideas to get feedback on. You can see the list of proposals in this repository: https://github.com/golang/proposal
-
An alternative memory limiter for Go based on GC tuning and request throttling
Approximately a year ago we faced with a necessity of limiting Go runtime memory consumption and started work on our own memory limiter. At the same time, Michael Knyszek published his well-known proposal. Now we have our own implementation quite similar to what has been released in 1.18, but there are two key differences:
- Shaving 40% off Google’s B-Tree Implementation with Go Generics
genny
-
Go 1.18 Released
Im not sure about any library in particular.
There were bunch of libraries which helped with code generation to work around generics. I don't think it was specific to Graphql.
https://github.com/cheekybits/genny is one I have seen.
-
To Those Who Criticize JavaScript
TypeScript is pretty much necessary for a modern JS project if you ask me, so I agree with you here. At the same time, I'd say that if the JS ecosystem offers a solution, that doesn't count as a failure. It's like pointing to the lack of generics in Go and calling that a failure. No, that's a design choice that can be worked around. Same in JS; dynamic typing was a design choice, TypeScript is a solution.
-
Learn to build SDK or Wrapper over REST and Websocker
If you want to experiment, I've been meaning to try out this library, which uses code generation (a first-class feature in go), to give generics-like functionality.
-
Created my first go tool, an interface generator
If you are into codegen, there are some larger codegen projects or there, like cheekybits/codegen (there are more in the space of trying to circumvent generics in go).
-
Metaprogramming
In golang there is no parametric polymorphism (or “type parameters”, or “generics”). So people created workarounds, for example, gengen (similar solutions genny, generic, gen):
What are some alternatives?
go - The Go programming language
goreuse
vscode-gremlins - Gremlins tracker for Visual Studio Code: reveals invisible whitespace and other annoying characters
TOML-to-Go - Translates TOML into a Go type in your browser instantly
avendish - declarative polyamorous cross-system intermedia objects
gonerics - Generics for go
too-many-lists - Learn Rust by writing Entirely Too Many linked lists
xgen - XSD (XML Schema Definition) parser and Go/C/Java/Rust/TypeScript code generator
go-generic-optional - Implementation of Optionals in Go using Generics
generic - flexible data type for Go
golang-set - A simple, battle-tested and generic set type for the Go language. Trusted by Docker, 1Password, Ethereum and Hashicorp.
Garment - 🐺 A Thread Safe Connection Pooling.