Our great sponsors
-
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1328
> Have you ever wanted an interface (or abstract type) to be parameterized on a polymorphic variable to its implementer, but not its users? Have you ever wanted to parameterize over internal state, without revealing what that state contains to your users? This is what existential types allow you to do.
What I still don't understand is why golang has exceptions for "language constructs" like make() and append()... But also those are unimplementable in golang.
What personally annoys me the most in golang is that it embraces static and functional patterns in its core, but it doesn't even have map/filter/reduce/forEach as generic implementations for all data types.
The lack of a "new" keyword and default values for struct's property syntax is also pretty annoying. Let alone the "hack" with annotations for decoding/encoding everywhere.
For loop fatigue in golang makes it so unreadable in practice, and leads everybody to offloading manipulation of arrays/slices to helper methods, just to have the for loop there.
The library that fixes this as good as possible with generics is the "lo" library (inspired by lodash) [1]. It's worth taking a look at it if you're curious how to implement it for your structs.
[1] https://github.com/samber/lo
>they want to observe how generics are used in the wild. I don't have the link handy, but it was mentioned in one of the generics discussions (issue on GitHub).
The rationale can be found here:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/48918