Merovius

> Using conventional commits gives you a framework and mechanism that undoubtedly improves contribution semantics.

I do not want to contribute to a project using conventional commits. I have consistently found, that I am unable to decide what the "type" of a commit even is and I feel unnaturally caged in into how I would split up commits, by having them be restricted to types (it doesn't help that the conventional commits I've seen appear to decide the type by fair dice roll).

Discouraging contributions does not "undoubtedly improve contribution semantics".

When I said "you need a runtime implementation of generics" I did not mean "you need dynamic dispatch". I meant "you need a type-checker and at least limited code generator at runtime".

> Similar to what java does.

Yes, if you completely forego the static implementation, you can deal with just one. Then all code is slow.

Java can get away with it, because it has a JIT compiler – so it isn't subject to the same "no runtime code generation" design restriction Go is. That also means, it can run on fewer platforms than Go.

> add a new type of interface that is only for use in generic constraints

Yes, that would be feasible. It has been ruled out, because we really don't want to have interfaces that can not be used as types. They currently exist, but the goal is to remove that restriction, not to add more of the same.

I'll note that either way, at that point we are firmly outside the realm of this particular thread. It's no longer what I was responding to.

I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you are referring to the reflect package? In that case, yes, that exists. But it is limited in its power (for example, it doesn't allow to create types with methods – precisely because of the difficulties we are talking about) and a comparatively frequent source of bugs. If anything, it provides pretty strong evidence for the problems with this approach.

FWIW I found, so far, that bringing up dyn-compatibility to Rust people was very useful in helping them understand why Go's interfaces won't ever have generic methods.

The one additional piece of information you need is that in Go, all interfaces are supposed to be trait objects. The exception are union-elements, but that's really a restriction the Go team is trying to remove, not a model to base more features on.

> but the reason against using runtime reflection is mostly that it's slow.

More specifically, it is that it would introduce surprising performance cliffs – code becoming surprisingly slow due to seemingly unrelated changes.

Though BTQH I think an even more important argument is that you would need to have effectively two generics implementations, one working at runtime and one working at compile time. That's a lot of complexity, with surprising failure modes if these two are not bug-compatible.

> But that runtime reflection is exactly how you would work around it today.

I think the overwhelming majority of people will "work around it" by just not trying to use generic methods.

To be clear, I have no skin in the game here. I thought the point you made sounded plausible and as I have zero experience or expertise, I wouldn't argue against it.

I just thought it's ridiculous - and kind of funny - to deny making the claim you literally made. I'm not sure you have a lot of legs to stand on, accusing others of "anti-science thinking" and a "failure of reading comprehension" when asking us to ignore the clear, textual evidence of that contradiction.

> For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases.

Says who? That seems a very narrow and unusual definition of what makes a "narrative", bent to your purpose. It seems to me, a "narrative" in common parlance just means "telling a story" or "relaying a sequence of events". I honestly have never seen someone use the word to imply generalization (doesn't mean no one ever did, of course).

In any case, given that you responded to a comment talking about the two examples of Texas and Hawaii with an example about California and an "actually", it seems pretty fair to me to say, that you even fulfilled this artificially narrowed definition.

I mean, come on, you have got to admit that you have at least been unclear, if you didn't intend to make this argument. Instead of just defensively flinging insults.

> perhaps less quippy

Being quippy is the point. That's how aphorisms work: creating a short, pithy distillation of a complex argument, that you can then use pars pro toto to make a point.

I certainly agree that POSWID is easily (and perhaps frequently) misused. But that doesn't invalidate it in general.

Wow that post is bad. The author clearly never actually attempted to understand what POSWID actually means and where it is coming from. Perhaps, instead of looking at Twitter, they should have opened Wikipedia. Or, better yet, Stafford Beers books (though admittedly, he was a pretty atrocious writer).

The follow-up is slightly better. But still not very convincing, IMO. They get far too stuck on a literal interpretation. Of something that self-describes as a heuristic.

> There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative.

…

> Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.

> it's a known problem and civilization hasn't collapsed.

Waiting for civilizational collapse to justify regulation seems like an unhelpful standard TBH. In fact, I would argue that it's one of the main problems we are having right now: that we know our current trajectory will lead to civilizational collapse, but aren't willing to change course.

If this happened to me, I would publish a blog post that starts "this is my official response:", followed by 10K words generated by a Markov Chain.

Which, for the purposes of this topic, means a flat toll. Because we're talking (for the most part) about passenger cars.