You doesn't talk like a coder. Real coder will answer "Nope, I used them" or "Indeed, I didn't use them". I don't understand you.
but in Go we've got interfaces
Are you sure about "uhhh nope"? Visitor pattern destroys readability (and performance for short unions replacement - and we actually need only short unions), other interface based approaches in Go don't provide type safety.
even contract-based generics soon
generics are orthogonal to to algebraic/variadic data types. They become much better with generics though and can provide full type safety for error handling (unlike current approach).
I am afraid you are actually have a little sense about the idea.
Don't waste your time arguing. Go is designed to minimize amount of computer science needed to do work. It is NOT designed for productivity or engineer happiness. It is specifically designed to make developers easily replaceable.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
You doesn't talk like a coder. Real coder will answer "Nope, I used them" or "Indeed, I didn't use them". I don't understand you.
Are you sure about "uhhh nope"? Visitor pattern destroys readability (and performance for short unions replacement - and we actually need only short unions), other interface based approaches in Go don't provide type safety.
generics are orthogonal to to algebraic/variadic data types. They become much better with generics though and can provide full type safety for error handling (unlike current approach).
I am afraid you are actually have a little sense about the idea.
Don't waste your time arguing. Go is designed to minimize amount of computer science needed to do work. It is NOT designed for productivity or engineer happiness. It is specifically designed to make developers easily replaceable.