To sacrifice simplicity of readability for simpler writing is to have never
been tasked with reading a 25kloc C# project and having to open 10 windows
just for the object-oriented pyramid of generic abstract partial template
class factories
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:44:10 PM UTC-8, hui zhang wrote:
>
> Disadvantage of Go
> 1 No Generic For Now
> That make user coding repeat code many times, even for basic type such as
> int float bool
> It is not easy , even to make a generic min function.
> using interface will always check type casting.
> and for []interface{} in generic function, u can't do cast
>
> 2 Incomplete Type in Basic Lib
> Take math lib as an example, math.Max math.Min are only for float64 ,
> you have do stupid conversion for other type.
>
> 3 No Default Value for struct.
> Consider multilayer struct. A {B {C {D {E {F} } } }
> to init A to a default value will be complicated.
> And how about A[] slice
> And what if D E F are from third party lib ?
> You have to dig into 3rd party code just for its default value.
> For It may have none zero default value.
>
> 4 Can not Cycle import.
> package A B can not import each other at the same time.
> While other language can.
> It seems not a big deal just put the the common thing in a new package
> But when the package and project grow bigger, it just easy to say.
> This change will affect all caller.
>
> 5 Inconsistent type conversion
> bool type are normal type just like int and float ,
> but u can't do below. while other type can cast to others
> int(bool) bool(int)
>
>
> 6 No multi casting expression
> func foo() (int16, int8)
> var i,j int32 = (int32,int32)(foo())
> Since go can't do this, why go provide multi return value.
>
> 7 No Ternary Expression
> hardly find a language without it except go
>
> 8 No Negative Index for slice
> all other script language support a[-1] as a[len(a)-1]
>
>
> When programing in go
> we have to do repeated type casting many times, due to the above.
> write long code for Ternary ,int(bool) a[-1] etc
> init big struct with default value.
> Which make Go not an Elegant and simple language.
> Once I thought go was a simple language,
> but in fact we write more code.
>
> All above are proposal for many times.
> And it is 6 years(or more).
> These basic functions are still not added. some of that should be add in
> version 1.0
> I belive most above could make go simpler,
> someone know a little programing could know how to use it.
> however someone still fear it make go complicate like c++
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
