On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:59 PM Kevin Chadwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clearly Go without interfaces, especially an empty interface is safer.
> Perhaps
> Generics reduce that risk via constraints etc.?
>
I understand why you might argue interfaces make the language less safe.
But generics are a mechanism with the express (and arguably only) purpose
of *adding* type-safety.
> Really. If you avoid interfaces and pointers. Is it even possible to
> panic...maybe with channels.
There's that, writing to a nil-map, accessing a slice out of bounds and
simply writing `panic("foo")`.
I don't understand this line of inquiry. Yes, a completely different
language, which removes most of the features from Go might be able to
provide more type-safety. So? Safety is not the be-all and end-all of
language features, there are languages which provide *far* more type-safety
than Go.
> I'm not trolling or anything. I just feel that a risk analysis section by
> those
> that understand all the details, might be useful to people, before
> deciding on a
> thumbs up or down?
>
Let me repeat my question: Do you have any concrete reason to assume there
is a negative security impact of generics? Feel free to bring that up.
Otherwise, I don't see a reason to talk about it in the design doc.
>
> --
> 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].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5274cf02-a9a7-357d-e498-b979c1b02f15%40gmail.com
> .
>
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfFahGx1qxLKXr%2BfPBzpUPGEEY0B-bpY6nPZnHB5Wqx6pQ%40mail.gmail.com.
