undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalkonaut10y ago0 comments

If code generation is used to make up for something missing in a language (be it generics, metaprogramming etc.) then that's a pretty clear sign something is wrong.

It's definitely acceptable to use a workaround for a missing feature once or twice in a language, because no language is perfect, and no language benefits from being burdened with all features imaginable.

But if a workaround becomes part of the day-to-day workflow, then you are likely using the wrong language.

Examples could be: using (textual) code generation for generics, or using type annotations throughout a dynamic language project.

0 pointsalkonaut10y ago0 comments

If code generation is used to make up for something missing in a language (be it generics, metaprogramming etc.) then that's a pretty clear sign something is wrong.

But if a workaround becomes part of the day-to-day workflow, then you are likely using the wrong language.

Examples could be: using (textual) code generation for generics, or using type annotations throughout a dynamic language project.

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

Arzh10y ago· 3 in thread

Code generation is not about a deficiency in the language, C++ has templating but I will often use code generation since you only need to run that once and templating bloats the compile time for ever.

nanny10y ago

>I will often use code generation since you only need to run that once and templating bloats the compile time for ever.

Don't you need to compile the generated code?

prodigal_erik10y ago

For reproducibility you have to regenerate, write, read, and parse it, which I can't imagine being faster than instantiating a template in memory.

Arzh10y ago

Yes of course, but compiling the code is faster than generating the code and then compiling it. Templates are much slower than just compiling code straight.

1 more reply

tptacek10y ago

Everyone agrees something is wrong, even the Go team. The debate is whether it's meaningfully wrong, or just "someone's wrong on the Internet" wrong --- because the cost of righting this wrong will be high.

thegenius200010y ago

Well put. Though I would add that though generics are convenient, they are not as needed nearly often enough to be a crucial missing feature in a language. Yes, it's uncanny to copy here and there, and certainly, the Go team should try and resolve this. But from where I'm standing this (i.e. generics) is one of the very few fair criticisms of Go which can be leveled from the Java, C++ or C# communities.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse