Go does have sum types — but the syntax is awkward and a bit transparent, so many don't recognize it as being there, and those that do don't love using it.
Go does have sum types — but the syntax is awkward and a bit transparent, so many don't recognize it as being there, and those that do don't love using it.
Can you enlighten us to what you’re talking about instead of vagueposting like this? What’s the supposed way of simulating sum types in go?
I am not sure how would you would simulate them. With enums and structs, I suppose?
However, it also has true sum types:
But as you can see the syntax leaves a lot to be desired and may not be all that obvious to those who are hung up thinking in other languages.interfaces in go aren’t types, so no, that’s not a sum type, it’s just an interface.
The set of objects that can fulfill that interface is not just string and int, it’s anything in the world that someone might decide to write an isSumType function for.
> it’s anything in the world that someone might decide to write an isSumType function for.
No. Notice the lowercase tag name. It is impossible for anyone else to add an arbitrary type to the closed set.
Unless your argument is that sum types fundamentally cannot exist? Obviously given a more traditional syntax like,
...one can come along and add C just the same. I guess that is true in some natural properties of the universe way. It is a poor take in context, however.