Edit: I don't think there's anything like type classes either but I'm not 100%.
It is strong enough for me.
I see the lack of algebraic data types and type classes as a feature, honestly. It means I can learn the things I need and start working in 2 days instead of in 2 weeks or a month.
I sometimes need generics, but not frequently enough to miss them.
You think Go's type system is weak. I think Haskell's type system is overcomplicated. So, there.
“When I work at this system up to 12hrs a day, I’m profoundly uninterested in what user interface a novice user would prefer.” —Erik Naggum
Are you using visual basic because you could pick it up in 2 days instead of taking a month to learn Go?
It's easy to learn because it doesn't do anything interesting that you're not already familiar with. If you're not missing them, you're missing out on simple beautiful abstractions like map and filter. You're also missing out on type safe libraries for containers. It's not possible to write a generic container without casts to interface{}, which is a shame imo.
Bringing The Language Which Shall not Be Named to the discussion is a low blow. But I deserve it. My phrase about overcomplication was flamebaity and uncalled for, and I apologize.
> you're missing out on simple beautiful abstractions like map and filter
The thing is, in Go, those take almost as much space as a plain for loop.
I know, you will tell me "that's because Go's too verbose". I will grant that it's more verbose than Haskell.
But I am not doing maps and filters all the time in my code.
> It's not possible to write a generic container without casts to interface{}, which is a shame imo.
My point is that generic containers are the feature where generics are genuinely needed. And in those cases interface{} makes it possible. Not super-awesome, but possible. I actually like that the language doesn't bend over to fulfill something that looks almost like an edge case. It is not "programming with mathematics". It's still "moving bits around". But the bits can be moved with ease.
One might prefer a weak type system over a strong type system, but that's a different discussion. The parent clearly expressed that he wants a static strong type system.
I disagree. "Weakly typed" does not even have a precise definition.
Defining "strongly typed" as "the way Haskell does it" and anything less as "weakly typed" is an opinion.
I agree that Haskell types are stronger than Go. That does not does not mean that Go is "weakly typed". It's "less strongly typed than Haskell".
> The parent clearly expressed that he wants a static strong type system.
I was not contesting that, only the classification of Go as "weakly typed".
Calling one weak and the other overcomplicated are both completely subjective, biased statements.
And no, some random blog doesn't count as a citation: There are zero legitimate, agreed to sources that will back up your definition. Instead it's people painting broad strokes to bias the world towards their own beliefs.
Just as unreasonably I could say that Go has a Clarified Type System, versus the Conundrum Type System found in Haskell.
