And I'm not a python expert, so I might be wrong here, but:
My understanding is that this decorator generates some class in the background that wraps the function into some remotely executable container thing, and handles the networking?
Since python is a dynamic language, and go is not, this would be impossible without codegen, generics or not, but go does have codegen facilities.
And the more immediate implication, that many OOP languages do (and seems to be going on in here) is that they handle asynchrony via some generic Awaitable[T] pattern.
Go does not do this, generally the way you handle asynchrony and abstract typed results is by using channels. You don't await on 'smart' objects, you read from channels (which are 'generic' in a way, but they are the few exceptions where go used to allow this behavior).
Ah yep! I should’ve given a Go example. In Python we use decorators because it’s what’s in fashion, but in Go and TypeScript you just create a `NewTask()` e.g. where you pass a function (as well as other args), and it returns something with e.g. a `Result` method. And that result method, which is generic, is the thing that’s really nice to have typed.
Agreed codegen works fine here too by the way, but it feels kind of clunky to me (it’s something I don’t love about Go, although I know it’s also an important part of the ecosystem and is popular).
I'm just saying that this Task[T] pattern is completely alien to Go. If you want to have one-off ansynchrony, then just write it synchronously and start your work on a goroutine.
If you wanna do batch processing, use channels.
For all intents and purposes, I would say 90% of IRL usage of generics is either this Task[T] pattern, collections or map() style array processing functions.
Go had a solution for all 3 of these, that didn't involve generics. I'm in a fortunate position that I get to pick the language I work in for a lot of my work (from a reasonable selection). So if I want to write Go, I'll rather do it idiomatically, otherwise I'd pick something else. Which should be the case for everyone, and language designers should take heed. The 'we want the Java/Python/Go/JS audience' sentiment has ruined many a language, as they've turned themselves into the same mediocre language that has all the features everyone else has.
My understanding is that this decorator generates some class in the background that wraps the function into some remotely executable container thing, and handles the networking?
Since python is a dynamic language, and go is not, this would be impossible without codegen, generics or not, but go does have codegen facilities.
And the more immediate implication, that many OOP languages do (and seems to be going on in here) is that they handle asynchrony via some generic Awaitable[T] pattern.
Go does not do this, generally the way you handle asynchrony and abstract typed results is by using channels. You don't await on 'smart' objects, you read from channels (which are 'generic' in a way, but they are the few exceptions where go used to allow this behavior).