Less is exponentially more (2012)
commandcenter.blogspot.com
Less is exponentially more (2012)
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#2Pike's take is pretty unfair to C++11, given how ideas like 'rvalue references' held up REALLY well.
Yes, they were introducing even more complexity to a complex language, but how else are they supposed to incorporate better ways of doing things while maintaining backwards compatibility?
I suppose one could always just build a new language that doesn't have the historical cruft, but in this case that's Rust and not Go.
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#3Previous discussion since the HN "past" link doesn't bring up the prior thread because tld was ".de" instead of ".com" : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6417319
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#4>Programmers who come to Go from C++ and Java miss the idea of programming with types, particularly inheritance and subclassing and all that. Perhaps I'm a philistine about types but I've never found that model particularly expressive.
Whoa, hold it there... inheritance and subclassing are OOP, types is a different subject, right?
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#5A few years ago I started to play with go. First impression was great. But a month or so in I started to having more and more doubts. As a Java/C++ programmer I was missing especially the generic collections. Slice and map are a good start, but not enough.
Then one day I had to implement the swap operation for sorting. Again. And I thought that even C's qsort was better, and WTF am I wasting my time on this half-assed language. I dumped it, tried rust, and even with its slow compile times I couldn't be happier.
Now a few releases later, they fixed sort so I can only implement compare. Sorry, it's not nearly enough. Essential parts are simply missing. Exhibit A is source code generation, a clear indication go isn't enough on its own. I'm not working with an ecosystem where my human time is less important than the language philosophy. I want to express a repetitive pattern in the language, and then never think about dumb bureaucratics again.
It was a near miss, though. SOme things are clearly correct. I want to look again when they finally have generics, and some basic collections. I hope that day comes and I can give it a new chance. But until then, less was simply not enough .
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#6Please tag this with the date, 2012. Great but old blog post.
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#7>Programmers who come to Go from C++ and Java miss the idea of programming with types, particularly inheritance and subclassing and all that. Perhaps I'm a philistine about types but I've never found that model particularly expressive. Whoa, hold it there... inheritance and subclassing are OOP, types is a different subject, right?
To be honest programmers have a habit of being very loose with language. Terms like "OOP" and "types" have very context dependent meanings. Given the context, I took him to simply be talking about people coming from "class-based" languages, not anything to do with types in general.
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#8Needs "(2012)" in the title.
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#9While this philosophy has a lot of value, it just isn't for me. I did a few apps in Go, and fought my way to a decent level of proficiency. I got to a point where I could solve some problems without constantly consulting the docs. But in the end, I wasn't enjoying the experience. The speed was great, the compilation was great. All the selling points were true. But it was missing so many things that I enjoyed using from other languages. (Mostly methods for dealing with collections of data - everything in Go is a for loop). I did another project in Kotlin shortly after and wow, that language has everything AND the kitchen sink! But, I truly enjoyed myself more while working with it. So, this is not me saying Go is "bad". It's actually quite good. It's just not something I enjoy.
Re: Less is exponentially more (2012)
#10Golang didn't succeed because it is simple or powerful or any of the, I apologize, nonsense your hear from the Gophers. Golang succeeded because it was the only available relevant option and alternative to the aging Python and Java when the cloud took off in the early 2010s.