Hacker News Reader

tldr: I will be using a lot of generics and do tons of set operations. I will chose Go, a language that doesn't have generics and sets.

(I won't post the Go code for criticism, and I couldn't stand golang-nuts)

View on HN

So... if you need any data structure other than an array, a hash table or a channel, you should skip Go and find some other language? That's kind of limited.

No, the problem is that he needed Sets of many different kinds. It's perfectly straightforward to implement data structures in Golang; it's just hard to make them work for a variety of types simultaneously.

> it's just hard to make them work for a variety of types simultaneously.

That's sort of what you expect from any given implementation of a data structure and its related algorithms, though I imagine that some specialized implementations benefit from having them tailored to their concrete types. Examples, anyone, please?

and; go isn't the best language to write everything in.

I think that's a fair conclusion for him to have drawn. He certainly wasn't hating on go.

(golang-nuts is openly hostile to any kind of criticism, so much so that there's been talk of a community code of conduct; which the community didn't want. I don't blame him.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com