57K views · Nov 14, 2018 · 1:07:00 · 1 HN recommender · 8 mentions · discussed 2018–2024
Rob Pike presents the Go 2 draft specifications at the Sydney Golang Meetup, covering the Go 2 process and several proposals including generics. The Q&A contains a well-known exchange about the name of the language.
Why Hacker News points people here: Cited in Go threads for Pike's stance on generics and the Go 2 process, plus an amusing Q&A moment.
“Rob Pike had a good talk on the Go 2 process and a few of the proposals”HN comment, 2018
“Rob Pike had a good talk on the Go 2 process and a few of the proposals”
Rob Pike on Go 2 process and some proposals.
Rob Pike had a good talk on the Go 2 process and a few of the proposals that went up on YouTube a few days ago: this video
“You can watch Rob Pike publicly correcting someone at the end of his "Go 2 Draft Specifications" session during Q&A.”
A domain name is not a programming language name, oh look this cool stuff I have done in ISOCPP. You can watch Rob Pike publicly correcting someone at the end of his "Go 2 Draft Specifications" session during Q&A. this video
“Rob Pike already stated publicly that he is against the proposed idea for Go 2.0.”
Cited as evidence Rob Pike opposed the Go 2.0 proposal.
Not really, that is the hand waving when the issue ever pops up. Rob Pike already stated publicly that he is against the proposed idea for Go 2.0. "Rob Pike - Go 2 Draft Specifications" - this video
“he was positive that a good design can be found.”
Pike was positive a good generics design could be found.
> I'm thinking of Rob Pike I do not remember him being against generics. He is the one who contacted his former colleague Phil Wadler to help with the theoretical validation of the type parameters proposal. In his talk about the Go 2 draft specifications (back then the proposal was still based on contracts) he was positive that a good design can be found. (*) this video
“One of the language designers explaining the motivation for adding parametric polymorphism to Go”
Language designer explains motivation for adding parametric polymorphism to Go.
> purely for ideological reasons There are no ideological reasons. link "Generics may well come at some point." link "A language proposal implementing a form of generic types has been accepted for inclusion in the language. If all goes well it will be available in the Go 1.18 release." One of the language designers explaining the motivation for adding parametric polymorphism to Go: this video Explaining the benefits of generics: link From the Featherweight Go paper: link "Recently, the Go team mooted a design to extend Go with generics, and Rob Pike wrote Wadler to ask: Would you be interested in helping us get polymorphism right (and/or figuring out what “right” means) for some future version of Go?"
“Rob Pike explicitly stated that he really isn't into generics,”
Cited as Pike stating he isn't into generics.
Rob Pike explicitly stated that he really isn't into generics, this video (starts here) this video (he expresses his opinion here) We haven't made our little heads out of nowhere.
“Rob Pike has publicly expressed he is not happy with the generics decision”
Cited for Pike's unhappiness with the generics decision.
Cox is not the founding team, and Rob Pike has publicly expressed he is not happy with the generics decision, but it wasn't his decision to take. "Sydney Golang Meetup - Rob Pike - Go 2 Draft Specifications" this video (starts here) this video (he expresses his opinion here)
“Rob Pike corrects an audience question when the guy uses golang instead of Go.”
Rob Pike corrects an audience question when the guy uses golang instead of Go. "Sydney Golang Meetup - Rob Pike - Go 2 Draft Specifications" this video
