text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[1449.82 --> 1450.20] type.
[1450.86 --> 1451.26] It maps
[1451.26 --> 1452.20] from a key
[1452.20 --> 1453.56] that is a generic
[1453.56 --> 1455.30] type to a value
[1455.30 --> 1456.06] that is a generic
[1456.06 --> 1456.46] type.
[1456.88 --> 1457.40] I see you're
[1457.40 --> 1458.38] sipping your drink
[1458.38 --> 1458.62] again,
[1458.70 --> 1459.06] so I know
[1459.06 --> 1459.66] that you disagree.
[1460.70 --> 1460.96] No,
[1461.08 --> 1462.18] I 100% agree.
[1462.68 --> 1462.84] Oh,
[1462.86 --> 1463.18] you do?
[1463.36 --> 1463.52] Okay.
[1464.12 --> 1464.82] The slices
[1464.82 --> 1465.92] were always
[1465.92 --> 1466.36] generic.
[1466.72 --> 1467.44] We just couldn't
[1467.44 --> 1468.40] define our own,
[1468.54 --> 1469.28] so it was like
[1469.28 --> 1470.52] good for the 80%
[1470.52 --> 1471.22] of the use
[1471.22 --> 1471.58] cases,
[1471.68 --> 1472.22] but then we
[1472.22 --> 1472.94] had our own
[1472.94 --> 1473.70] cases that we
[1473.70 --> 1474.18] needed it,
[1474.50 --> 1474.92] and we just
[1474.92 --> 1475.32] didn't have
[1475.32 --> 1475.68] anything.
[1476.14 --> 1476.86] So you will
[1476.86 --> 1477.40] talk now,
[1477.46 --> 1477.86] and I will
[1477.86 --> 1478.46] sip a drink.
[1480.10 --> 1480.50] No,
[1480.58 --> 1481.12] I definitely
[1481.12 --> 1481.58] agree with you
[1481.58 --> 1482.54] that the maps
[1482.54 --> 1483.10] and the slices
[1483.10 --> 1484.62] are generic.
[1484.74 --> 1485.42] They've literally
[1485.42 --> 1486.14] since day one,
[1486.86 --> 1487.26] and like you
[1487.26 --> 1487.38] said,
[1487.40 --> 1487.94] it is like that
[1487.94 --> 1488.90] 80% use case,
[1488.96 --> 1489.12] right?
[1489.50 --> 1489.80] I don't know
[1489.80 --> 1490.28] how to tie this
[1490.28 --> 1491.70] back to OOP
[1491.70 --> 1492.38] stuff now.
[1492.62 --> 1492.74] No,
[1492.80 --> 1494.24] because why I
[1494.24 --> 1495.02] think it plays
[1495.02 --> 1496.00] a role in this
[1496.00 --> 1497.30] is because what
[1497.30 --> 1498.90] people did in
[1498.90 --> 1499.66] those cases
[1499.66 --> 1500.52] is they would
[1500.52 --> 1501.88] write a lot
[1501.88 --> 1502.36] of functional
[1502.36 --> 1503.06] code,
[1503.76 --> 1505.02] procedural code,
[1505.34 --> 1505.74] et cetera,
[1506.22 --> 1507.64] and did not
[1507.64 --> 1508.92] use necessarily
[1508.92 --> 1510.92] generic types.
[1511.54 --> 1512.56] I think we've
[1512.56 --> 1513.26] had a lot of
[1513.26 --> 1514.02] workarounds.
[1515.08 --> 1515.66] I think now
[1515.66 --> 1516.88] we can eliminate
[1516.88 --> 1517.14] them.
[1517.24 --> 1517.70] I think the
[1517.70 --> 1518.76] language is very
[1518.76 --> 1519.84] mature to be
[1519.84 --> 1520.54] object-oriented.
[1521.00 --> 1521.20] No,
[1521.26 --> 1521.70] that makes sense
[1521.70 --> 1522.00] to me.
[1522.26 --> 1522.74] Natalie,
[1523.22 --> 1524.00] can you hear me?
[1524.14 --> 1524.46] No.
[1524.86 --> 1525.58] One thing is on
[1525.58 --> 1525.94] Zoom call,
[1526.04 --> 1526.56] another thing is
[1526.56 --> 1527.26] on a podcast.
[1528.00 --> 1528.34] It's a whole
[1528.34 --> 1528.72] new level.
[1528.90 --> 1530.10] I found a
[1530.10 --> 1530.66] quote from
[1530.66 --> 1531.20] Rob Pike
[1531.20 --> 1532.50] about Go
[1532.50 --> 1534.24] being yes
[1534.24 --> 1534.76] or no
[1534.76 --> 1536.22] object-oriented.
[1536.70 --> 1537.60] So it's a