521–530 of 561 posts
The flagged feature needs to be tweaked on HN; it's being used far too often to censure opinions others simply do not agree with.
It's also being used to try and avoid another flamewar, which this article seems practically guaranteed to cause.
I don't know nothin' about Go. But this complaint really surprised me: > Go not letting you do operator overloading, harking back to the Java days where a == b isn't the same as a.equals(b) Does this guy really not understand that in a mutable language, (eq ...) is not the same as (equalp ...) and should never be confused with it? Also: operator overloading is the spawn of Satan.
> Also: operator overloading is the spawn of Satan. It is. And I'm glad Zig has none of that. `==` only works for primitives and you will never be confused.
So much Go hate and arguments over language design details. Meh. Back to producing fast, well-organized, maintainable, bullet proof code in Go for real-world problems.
Based on the article, I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last time his "I want off" article was reposted[0], the comments were pretty rough, ranging from ad-hom attacks to (at best) misunderstandings of the arguments he was making. I see this article being an address to these criticisms (which are not limited to this forum, I've seen similar arguments on twitter, etc.). Pointing out shortcomings isn't really impolite or unfair. The author specifically mentioned shortco…
Pointing out shortcomings isn't impolite - writing that Go wasn't designed, but happened by accident is however (IMHO).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes me angry about all this Go-bashing It's just a language! Take it easy. The guy is not "heaping on invectives" - he's not criticizing you or someone you care about. He's pointing out some flaws in a language in a sarcastic way.
Oh just some sarcasm: "Mom smokes, so it's probably okay" "I remember fondly the time an audience member asked the Go team "why did you choose to ignore any research about type systems since the 1970s" ? (Emphasis his, not mine) "It doesn't matter who points out that "maybe we shouldn't hit ourselves in the head with a rake repeatedly"" "Or you can be horrified, as you realize that those complex problems only exist b…
It's the matter of one's opinion, I personally love it. The design has +n years of experience behind it and stands on shoulder of some serious people (yea you already know who they are). Every language has its own gotchas, and if you are not satisfied with it, coding some Java might help you gain a little perspective.
Also, you should read the article, it mentions reactions like yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without that clarity, you end up with incompatible, spec-compliant implementations. The Go team officially maintains two implementations, gc and gccgo, to ensure that implementation doesn't end up ruling over the specification as has happened in other languages. There are also other third party implementations, including tinygo. Which spec-induced incompatibilities across these implementations are you referring to?
Go doesn't have a one-page spec, so what do you expect the GP to point to? You are proving his point.
You guys flagged this? That is not the move of a vibrant, growing, confident community. I’m no fan of the Rust jihad myself, but this isn’t spam or hate speech or whatever. That is a super weak move.
> the Rust jihad As a Rust jihadist myself ... yeah I can't disagree with this description. Even I get sick of all the Rust chatter/evangelism on HN sometimes. I love it and it's my preferred tool, but I wouldn't mind hearing about some alternative topics at least some of the time. (As for the article: I wrote Go for several years professionally, and what he says, well - rem acu tetigit . I know a lot of people on th…