Why Go Is Not Good
yager.io
Why Go Is Not Good
1–10 of 367 posts
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#2>I like Go. I use it for a number of things (including this blog)
and yet it goes down once it is posted on HN. I have had some articles of mine end up on HN and I never went down, even when my blog was still WordPress hosted on a machine of mine.
This is probably more of a shortcoming of the various cloud providers than of the language/environment itself I guess.
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#3This was a good read. Can anyone comment on whether they find the problems outlined in the article to really be painful in day-to-day go development?
From my initial dabblings with the language, it feels like its constraints may not actually be a big deal in practice, and may even be more of a help than a hindrance in large projects. It would be nice to get some commentary from more experienced go users.
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#4>I like Go. I use it for a number of things (including this blog) and yet it goes down once it is posted on HN. I have had some articles of mine end up on HN and I never went down, even when my blog was still WordPress hosted on a machine of mine. This is probably more of a shortcoming of the various cloud providers than of the language/environment itself I guess.
> and yet it goes down once it is posted on HN.
The "Retry for a live version" button is powered by Cloudflare, which also uses Go for many of its core services. So I'd be willing to bet it's the programming environment and/or the particular program, not the language.
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#5Cached version - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gmYvtpF...
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#6Go, Rust, Haskell, come from diffent ways of thinking about how to solve problems using programming languages..
Go aims to be more simple and concise, in the end you write less code to do the same thing, as you would in C++, Haskell or Rust.. because those 3 languages decided to "cover everything" and are worried about other things, creating more burden to the programmer, but with something else to gain
Go is more of a productivity language.. it remind us the we have better things to do in life, and not spend all the time coding, but enjoying that extra time with your family for instance..
Therefore Go is good.. its only MAYBE "not good" for the same thing that Rust, or Haskell are..
Besides.. this is the wrong way to market some technology or idea.. the best way would be "Why Rust or Haskell are Good" instead of envy the success of others..
Its all about tradeoffs.. and i think this article misses the point.. and care only some things that will obviouslly make some languages more fit.. like, if you care more about memory control,type systems and safety.. its obvious that Rust and Haskell will look good and "correct"
But this is not all about it.. theres team working, productivity.. its a balance.. and always depends of the problem domains.. some language are more fit than others.. theres no need for bashing
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#7Every single thing listed in the article can be added to Go at any point, since it currently has a very minimal feature set. Once something like generics are added, they have to support it until the end of time or risk having an unstable API like Rust did for a while there.
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#8Cached version - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gmYvtpF...
[deleted]
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#9Go, Rust, Haskell, come from diffent ways of thinking about how to solve problems using programming languages.. Go aims to be more simple and concise, in the end you write less code to do the same thing, as you would in C++, Haskell or Rust.. because those 3 languages decided to "cover everything" and are worried about other things, creating more burden to the programmer, but with something else to gain Go is more of…
> Go aims to be more simple and concise, in the end you write less code to do the same thing, as you would in C++, Haskell or Rust..
I sincerely doubt that Go is more concise than Haskell. I won't say whether concise is good or bad, but I very much doubt that Go is the most concise.
Re: Why Go Is Not Good
#10Every single thing listed in the article can be added to Go at any point, since it currently has a very minimal feature set. Once something like generics are added, they have to support it until the end of time or risk having an unstable API like Rust did for a while there.
> or risk having an unstable API like Rust did for a while there.
Every language, including all the languages described in this article, goes through a period of instability while it figures out what works and what doesn't.