Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicpottier | Hacker News Reader

So what's your complaint? That you want a synchronized map? Then write a two line function that wraps your native golang typed mapped with sync.Mutex and be done with it.

If you are sharing a map in this way across many goroutines you are probably "doing it wrong" in go anyways.

View on HN

> Then write a two line function that wraps your native golang typed mapped with sync.Mutex and be done with it.

Two lines? I think you underestimate what's going on in sync.Map: https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/sync/map.go

That is how I used to code in the old days, still on MS-DOS, we are way past those basic type systems.

I can see your point but you're generalizing a bit. For many people they work, for many others they don't. The old and the new type systems both have their place and use-cases.

The new type system is a superset of the older ones.

You can still write your own specialized error-prone repetitive containers for each and every type by hand.

Yet, once a language has generics, people don't use the old way even though it's still possible to.

Perhaps that's because it has no place when there's a replacement which is less error-prone, less repetitive, more usable, and can be implemented once in a library and used forever.

I don't disagree. The risk is there. It's just that for me and others in this thread it's at an acceptable level.

Outside of that, agreed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com