(no title)
fizzybeetle | 6 years ago
Why do you say this point in particular? Python's duck typing makes generics very easy, no? i.e., you can write an algorithm in python that just assumes a particular method is callable and you don't have to code gen individual implementations for different types. plus the dunder (e.g., `__iadd__`) methods give a lot of useful basic functionality
weberc2|6 years ago
Usually when people refer to generics they're referring to a static type system that allows for expressing generic algorithms. (Untyped) Python inherently has no static type system, so necessarily can't support generics by that definition. The other definition of generics that _is_ satisfiable by (untyped) Python--the definition you presumably had in mind--is equally satisfiable by Go via its `interface{}` type. So regardless of which definition you adhere to, "Go lacks generics" is no more valid a criticism for Go than for Python.
Practically speaking, there's some syntax ceremony involved in using `interface{}` in Go; coming from Python or another dynamic language, this ceremony will probably offend your sensibilities--why is it so hard to opt out of the type system!? But that's by design--Go generally tries to keep you on the path of correctness without being overbearing (as many find stricter languages--e.g., Haskell--to be).
coldtea|6 years ago
Well, that's not exactly the case. Interface{} might have the same tradeoffs with Python's dynamic types (plus more ceremony), but that's not the real issue.
Python is inherently a dynamic typed language, so not having types and generics is expected and idiomatic.
For Go, you have a type system and static type checking, but you can't properly use it when you resort to interface{} to make generic algorithms.
So while for Python not having types/generics is business as usual (and that's part of the very promise of the language), for Go not having generics means losing two of it's main promises, static type checking and speed.