Hacker News Reader

It’s weird to see complaints about code generation causing a too big code base at compile time when code generation is exactly what a compiler will do behind the scenes for generics.

View on HN

Not necessarily, specialisation is only argubly required for unboxed types. Java actually implements "Generics" without any specialisation at all, it boxes all the primitive types (rather controversially).

And that has a baggage of problems. The best way is what C# does, which incidentally is also what Go does with maps:https://dave.cheney.net/2018/05/29/how-the-go-runtime-implem...

The C#/.NET solution, while very good, has some problems too. By implementing generics so deeply into the runtime, it becomes very difficult to enhance the support in the future, for example adding higher-kinded types (which the F# folks have long been asking for).

I actually quite like the Haskell approach of having a "Specialisation" annotation. I believe Scala has this too.

Nope. The draft explicitly states that the design allows the compiler to use a run-time implementation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com