That answer has been there for a while.
That answer has been there for a while. There hasn't really been any indication that the issue actually is open, other than a refusal to state outright "no generics in Go". I can't decide if my biggest problem with that answer is that it suggests that the primary use case for generics is generic containers (when, really, the main benefit of generic containers is being able to implement generic algorithms on said containers, like pmap), or whether it's the suggestion that breaking type safety in a statically typed language is a feature. interface{} is barely an improvement over void*. The need for it suggests an insufficiently powerful type system. Go should either have a type system powerful enough not to need an explicit convention to avoid it, or it should have been dynamically typed.
Posted by djur on Sep 15, 2014, 12:33 AM
Tags
Related issues
- Not sure what you suggest to do.
- Why is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
Not sure what you suggest to do.
NewWhy is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
NewThe biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
That answer has been there for a while.
That answer has been there for a while. There hasn't really been any indication that the issue actually is open, other than a refusal to state outright "no generics in Go". I can't decide if my biggest problem with that answer is that it suggests that the primary use case for generics is generic containers (when, really, the main benefit of generic containers is being able to implement generic algorithms on said containers, like pmap), or whether it's the suggestion that breaking type safety in a statically typed language is a feature. interface{} is barely an improvement over void*. The need for it suggests an insufficiently powerful type system. Go should either have a type system powerful enough not to need an explicit convention to avoid it, or it should have been dynamically typed.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.