You crackers told me Go was simple. Easy to use. I just can't read this shit.
>>109637954>I just can't read this shit.Have you considered increasing contrast
>>109637954Simple, use Go before 1.23.The new update with iterators and method generics ruined it.
based, might look into trying Go again.>>109638066you unironically do not deserve to be a programmer if you cannot understand generics. they are central to the theory of types, just like incrementation is central to working arithmetic.
>>109637954Took me a while to see what it's doing. This is beautiful. If you don't understand this then you're better off letting a clanker do all of your programming for you
Ken Thompson was against generics for a reason.
>>109637954Never written a line of Go in my life and I understand this perfectly. It's bog standard for any no Cnile language.
>>109638577retard. I know what it does. I can read the fucking code but it's fucking unreadable.>Map[U any]why add any? It's a generic ffs.
Retard you're not supposed to code in it, you're just supposed to larp about it
Aren't those just higher order functions?
is this supposed to be the fabled wholesome chungus super duper simple no bloaterino language?
>>109637954Anything that Google makes is unusable garbage. Try C++ instead.
>>109639474I think op is looking for a language that looks like less of a clusterfuck, not more
>>109637954LLMs were invented for this. You don't need to understand language syntax anymore. You just need a basic understanding of procedural logic and be able to properly and thoroughly specify what you want.
>Go finally has generic receiversWhoa?
>>109639470Seriously, C++ and Rust are way more readable than this.How can you fuckup generics syntax so much and in supposedly simple language for beginners?
I have ptsd from trying to make a drivable tank using Godot engineI don't ever want to use Gothat was such a waste of my week and I have profound guilt and terrors from it
Takes more than 3 seconds to read what it does so it's shit
>>109638024fpbp
It's not nice, but generics are almost never nice to read in any language.
>>109638066true
>>109637954>I just can't read this shit.You may be clinically retarded.
>>109640231
>>109638143>>109638066That's so crazy how less readable it is now. It used to be that you could pretty much just jump in to nearly any codebase and know what's going on.
>>109637954Go was optimized for a compiler to read, not a human.Every single syntax decision they made was purely to make it easier to write the parser.func ()name()()
Some of y'all have never had to deal with crufty Perl 5 shit, and it shows.
>>109640231Cute Koshitan.
>>109638099complicating things is bad, if you dont understand that you shouldnt be allowed to waste oxygen
>>109640641>complicating things is bad,objectively true>if you dont understand that you shouldnt be allowed to waste oxygennow you're just being retarded
>>109637954Go *is* simple.Even the generics you're seeing aren't that complicated.Just because it doesn't look like Java doesn't make it not simple.A function which takes a list[T] called `l` and a function called `f` which takes Ts and outputs Us is called `Map` and does some trivial work.What's the problem?You don't understand generics, or you don't understand functional programming principles?Sounds like a one-language-knower problem.
>>109640641The simplest way to travel is to walk. If you were a useful member of society rather than a net drain on everyone around you, you'd probably still have a car, even though it's more complex than putting one foot in front of the the other.
>>109640757What makes someone project this obviously. Attention?
>>109640231I can almost see her butt
>>109637954I haven't programmed in Go but have no issue reading this. Therefore, it's skill issue on your side.
>>109640641then offer an alternative solution to the problem that generics solve (the use of identical code across numerous types of data given semantic similarities across such types).you understand the core problem, right? I want to be able to iterate over the elements of a linked list, the elements of an array, or the key--value pairs of a hash map, and I do not want to have to write separate implementations for each type. this is the problem that generics solve. you implement an iterator generic.
>>109639424>why add anybecause it is specifying that the values of the map can be any value. it is only locking down the type of the key.holy fuck you are retarded
>>109640907nvm I'm the retard
