Veraticus

For sure — a lot of language features need to be generic. But most people aren’t coding language features, and giving them the ability to do so can lead to, well, CodeFactoryFactoryMakerGenericMethodHelpersFactory, rather than good, clear, usable code.

I would say 95% of people who are trying to solve a complicated problem with reflection, type erasure, or codegen are solving the problem the wrong way. Obviously I'm glad these tools exist, and some problems can indeed only be solved with them. But I think people reach for them as a first solution and make bad code as a result. Go strongly encourages you not to reach for bad solutions, which is one of its bigger advantages, in my opinion.

I would say it skews towards languages that are easy to be immediately productive in, which is certainly one of Go's biggest strengths.

I have written a library actually. I found interfaces perfectly sufficient for allowing applications to consume the contracts of the library without needing generics. Of course I understand that they have a use and are useful, but it's not like there weren't excellent solutions for this in Go before generics existed.

But you probably will have to differentiate at some point between what you're inserting. Why not just do that, instead of artificially combine it into one function?

Nevertheless I feel like I'm getting lost in the weeds of this example. Obviously DRY and less duplication is good. However, you have to strike a balance between being clever and being clear. And frankly I would prefer 3 lines of clear code to 1 line of hard-to-read code.

Yeah this was my primary complaint with the inclusion of generics. People will try to be all clever and their code will wind up as an unreadable, unmaintainable disaster. It has definitely led to some cool stuff, but I prefer boring, verbose, and clear any day.

The power of voodoo

Do you actually have anything of value to add to this discussion? Because this comment is pretty bad.

Uh, generics are not data structures and generics are neither the only way nor the best way to interact with data structures.

Dynamic typing via interface{} is also huge Go code smell though, so...

Generics are definitely better for you. But I would say the overall pattern you're employing of bulk inserting different kinds of data structures with one function is the problem. Of course, I don't know your code so I'm sure you have a good reason for choosing what you did, but a BulkInsert of Any certainly made me raise my eyebrow.

Very insightful. Re: the generics point —

As a Go programmer I always thought the generics complaint was kind of silly in practice — complicated code should be simplified and made more concrete, not more generic.

I’m glad generics were implemented, if only to silence the chorus of people who didn’t even use Go but whined about the lack of them. Their inclusion has simplified the stdlib and led to some cool new functions. Nevertheless I think people implementing them in their own projects is basically code smell and they are a symptom of poorly thought-out code rather than excellent code.

Anyway. This was a good initial post and a good follow-up. Go is my favorite language out there right now for its clarity, power, and ease-of-use. And with loop variable capture coming (the biggest remaining foot gun in the language in my experience) the language is only getting better.

I’ve been surprised and pleased with Lemmy thus far, but lemmy-ui is kinda barebones at time. Cool that these alternatives exist.

No I said it. Not really my problem if you can’t read that, since it was honestly pretty obvious. And the other reply to your comment laid out basically the same criticism.

Not creating weird misogynistic strawmen would be a cool start

Yikes, it sounds like you have something you need to work on.

Culture is changing constantly; the idea that there's a fixed point there is absurd, because again, there is nothing inherent to a nation other than lines drawn on an arbitrary map.

White people already do include all sorts of people -- whiteness is, obviously, not a single unified ethnicity, national, cultural, linguistic, or historical background but an aesthetic conception of someone's skin color. Because ethnostatism is stupid and intellectually inconsistent.

There are 8 billion people on the planet and the population is still growing. Concern trolling about the future of humanity itself is pretty dumb given that, don't you think?

Though maybe not quite as silly as claiming that the individual desires of women don't matter but the individual desires of men do, given that there are more women than men. Certainly women's voices compromise more of the collective than men's voices, given there are more women, hmm?

If you don’t have the intellectual capacity to continue that’s okay. I understand ethnostatists get easily confused by ambiguity and historical fact.

No. Nations are lines drawn on a map. The people inside need have nothing in common other than geographic proximity.

Japan will exist as long as people live there and call it Japan. It has nothing to do with ethnicity, land, culture, or history.

Cultures are and always have been constantly shifting and changing; conquest is one method of that happening, as you point out, but is far from the only one. Immigration, emigration, catastrophe, technological progress, climate change... all result in the movement of people and the shifting of national and cultural boundaries.

No culture is "erased" as a result of this. Even if Japan fails to have children, Japanese culture and the Japanese nation will continue. It will look different, certainly. But there's nothing magical or better about the way things used to be simply because they used to be that way. Change is inevitable, and more than that, it is good.

I thought nations and the species were composed of women, so what is worse for women is probably worse for them too. Or are women outside of nations and the species?

Why would there be anything wrong with it? This is the way cultures and people have changed since time immemorial.

Women wanted to enter the workforce. No one (capitalism, capitalists, men) forced them to do so. That is why your framing is bad.

> You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive.

Humans overall will eventually cease to exist. All of us will be forgotten within a few generations, even if we have children. Motherhood/fatherhood is not the "real end game of life." You might believe so, but many others do not. Why are their points of view less valid than your own?

You continue to push the framing of this being bad for married couples. But again, it's simply better for unmarried women. Why should they be forced to suffer because we want artificially higher wages or because you have this idea that we need more babies?

If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever.

Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because capitalists forced them to participate in the workforce, but because being forced to be a dependent of the men in your life truly sucks.

And this discussion in the context of women having jobs is my problem with the framing. Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth.

> the point I make is how this only really happened because the forces of capitalism demanded/allowed them to, in order to drive down everyones' wages with the increased competition.

Right, this is the part with the weird framing.

Women work in order to achieve happiness, financial independence, have fun, give their life meaning -- all the reasons men do. Framing this as "capitalism forced women to work" seems entirely to ignore that women want to work just as much (or as little) as men do and for the same reasons.

Saying that the result is everyone's wages being driven down entirely ignores the fact that prior to this many women had zero ability to make any wages. So, their willing participation in the workforce is just a net benefit to them and to society as a whole.

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own.

For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.

Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion.

> Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.

It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women who could even enter into those negotiations, whereas before those doors were entirely closed to them.

Isn't the real sexism against women still ... sexism?

If a woman wants to be a mother or wants a successful career, that's the most valuable/noble job in the world to that woman.

> Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.

That is your words and is a weird way to frame women working.