>>109602956
I personally don't understand what's the big deal with having .each, .map etc. I use both for loops and .each/.map in other languages and it all depends on what I'm trying to achieve and how. I'm far from functional programming lover, but those little methods are just convenient.

>>109603095
Because in Go there should be just one way to do things

>>109602956
too late, everyone is moving away from this language now.
I used this language for the better part of the last 6-7 years and I wish I had never touched it.
sure I learned a lot from it but I could've done just fine with c++ desu.
now most of the projects I work on have zig/rust/c/c++/asm with no go in sight, I really hated how numb my brain felt every time I used it.
it's like the maintainers of this language thought "hey what's the dumbest demographic we can cater to" and practically added nothing useful for more than a decade?
what do you mean I have to a comment so the entire file is built to a specific platform??? like who thought that was a good idea if you can just expose that info then why not just pass through directly and trust your devs to do everything properly, the obsession to babysit every go dev by the go team has ultimately killed what could've been a very nice language.

>>109602956
if you don't see the benefits of generics and higher order functions you're ngmi

>>109603095
Composable iterator methods are haram according to the go team. The iterators they ended up giving just exist to enable their for each magic syntax.

They are evil and dumb people. Remember this.

>>109602956
why generics instead of or_else? I hate having to write err != nil

>>109603412
Why or_else instead of algebraic effects?

>>109603507
no idea what that is or_else is obvious.

>>109602956
>Now that it has generic methods, functional shitters are going to ruin it.
that is the way
>that is the way
that is the way

>>109602956
They already have with those retarded iterators.