Sydney Golang Meetup - Rob Pike - Go 2 Draft Specifications
Macquarie Group1 HN recommenders · 2018–2024
57K views · talk · dated · Uploaded 2018-11-14
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.
Cited in Go threads for Pike's stance on generics and the Go 2 process, plus an amusing Q&A moment.
49:55How Python was Shaped by leaky Internals, Armin Ronacher, Flask framework
Видео с мероприятий {speach!
1:12:27CppCon 2015: Andrei Alexandrescu “std::allocator...”
CppCon
51:18Lexical Scanning in Go - Rob Pike
GoogleFOSSSydney
46:09Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? – Richard Feldman
Metosin
1:03:29Maybe Not - Rich Hickey
ClojureTV
7:48Conway's Game Of Life in APL
Dyalog
1:12:56Lecture 1A | MIT 6.001 Structure and Interpretation, 1986
MIT OpenCourseWare
1:42:09Crockford on JavaScript - Volume 1: The Early Years
YUI Library
8 comments from Hacker News
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. [VIDEO]
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: [VIDEO]
Rob Pike corrects an audience question when the guy uses golang instead of Go. "Sydney Golang Meetup - Rob Pike - Go 2 Draft Specifications" [VIDEO]
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" - [VIDEO]
> 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. (*) [VIDEO]
> 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: [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, [VIDEO] (starts here) [VIDEO] (he expresses his opinion here) We haven't made our little heads out of nowhere.
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" [VIDEO] (starts here) [VIDEO] (he expresses his opinion here)