The Author Online Book Forums are Moving

The Author Online Book Forums will soon redirect to Manning's liveBook and liveVideo. All book forum content will migrate to liveBook's discussion forum and all video forum content will migrate to liveVideo. Log in to liveBook or liveVideo with your Manning credentials to join the discussion!

Thank you for your engagement in the AoF over the years! We look forward to offering you a more enhanced forum experience.

347846 (3) [Avatar] Offline
#1
Even though the book explains it is intermediate in level, the fact that the phrase "type generics", while obviously correct and understandable by those who know what it is, is not exactly standard (standard usage seems to be generics, or "generic programming", while the Go FAQ says "generic types" in the question Why does Go not have generic types? and uses the term "generics"), I am wondering if it might not be a little confusing for some readers?

Given that it is beyond scope to explain the term in the text, wouldn't it be better to use the same terminology as used in the Golang FAQ?

I do realize that "type generics" is more explicative than plain "generics".

Victor Kane
Matt Farina (9) [Avatar] Offline
#2
Victor, thanks for the quick feedback and this is a good catch.

The Go FAQ calls them generic types in the title and generics in the description. How would generic types sound in place of where the chapter says "type generics"?
347846 (3) [Avatar] Offline
#3
It's a pleasure! I'm really enjoying the book. Yeah, I think generic types gains in clarity and recognizability on the web.
Anonymous (122) [Avatar]
#4
Thanks for the quick turnaround on my question. I've updated my working copy.
Matt Farina (9) [Avatar] Offline
#5
Well, that appears to be a forum slip. Somehow I was logged out for that last comment.
347846 (3) [Avatar] Offline
#6
Again, my pleasure!