291–300 of 466 posts
The author list features, shows you can't solve them easily with go and then conclude that go is not good. With similar argument, I could list every feature of xml, show that they are not easily solvable with json and conclude that json is not good.
While many of these points (on generics especially) are completely legitimate, this article will fall on deaf ears. My impression of the Go community (both within Google and outside of it) is that there is a very ... moralistic? .... sense of "You don't really need that, we know best" going on. It aims to be a pragmatic language. But IMHO the anemic nature of the type system is a practical handicap that they have mad…
Go is pretty good for various use cases. Before that, one coded web services and server tools in C, C++, Java, etc. - nowadays Go is ideal for the task. It has the advantages of Java (JIT, strings, higher level concepts, inbuilt concurrency, etc), is fast and shares the simplicity of the C syntax.
This sort of gratuitous takedown is unfortunately crack for HN -- pages and pages of "here's how this popular thing is not like this other thing I like", without any thought given to why things are they way they are. Go is missing a lot of my pet features too but I know its authors are smart so I don't just immediately jump to assuming they don't know what they're doing. Thought experiment: write a proposal that work…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the end there is no one true best language out there. Go is great for a subset of problems and making it better at other things is a balancing act. The most popular languages are generally accidents of history. Unix gave us C, browsers gave us JavaScript, and Databases gave us SQL, etc.
I'm not understanding SQL as an accident of history, can you explain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About generics, this is highly debatable. This is a design choice, it's not a decision made by accident. You'll surely gonna have boilerplate code in some cases, but all the language will be a lot more readable, and simple. Simplicity it's the most wanted feature of Go, from the designers perspective, I think. In the long term it's preferable to have explicit and simple code, instead of complex magic. This is a corre…
How is code with generics more complex than without it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any critique of Go seems to be met with angry pitchforks in this place. As you say, the Go developers seem to have developed a kind of bunker mentality where they interpret legitimate criticisms of the language design as personal attacks, and respond by wearing Go's shortcomings as a badge of honour. It's not, I think, entirely healthy.
I think everyone who uses Go for anything is pretty clear about why they like it, and one of the major reasons is simplicity. So why are people then surprised when criticisms over lack of features fall on deaf ears? And to be honest, this whole argument about pitchforks seems like a straw man. If anything, it's currently fashionable to dump on Go at every opportunity. Hell, it's fashionable to dump on everything arou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think a language's popularity has anything to do with it being a good, well-thought-out language. Just look at Javascript.
Javascript is a very poor analogy since it's been grandfathered into our workflow, and has coincidentally been shoehorned into being workable, at the very least.
The blogger has completely missed the entire purpose of Go. I suggest anyone who actually wants info one way or the other to read the Preface in Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan's "The Go Programming Language". You will then understand why Go is the way it is and why all the negative points (in his mind) this blogger listed, are not in the language.
> read the Preface in Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan's "The Go Programming Language" I have read it :) I think it's both misguided and misleading. It's misguided because they have the wrong idea about simplicity, and it's misleading because they claim that Go is "radically simple". Go isn't really that simple; it's just inconveniently incapable.