My 20 year career is technical debt or deprecated

Sorry - I just reread my reply above and I can imagine it reading more personal than I intended. I apologise.

The point I was trying to make is this - I’ve worked with plenty of engineers who want me to trust their engineering opinions. Some are experienced. Many are not. I have no idea where you sit on that spectrum - I don’t know you; obviously.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s the right call to trust your own judgement. I just don’t think enough people actually nurture their judgement by exploring and experimenting with a lot of languages and styles. After all, how would a self proclaimed “Java programmer” know what problems you can solve more easily in Python? I don’t think you can truly understand the strengths and weaknesses of OO (or any philosophy really) unless you spend serious time embracing other approaches.

Again, maybe you’ve done that and maybe you haven’t. I don’t know you.

All subjective. That style has plenty of people who don’t agree with any of your criticisms and could list many of what they consider benefits. It would also be very difficult to prove that extra lines of code have any financial impact, let alone one that could be recovered in a matter of months.

Error handling absolutely breaks the language for me. I understand why many don't like exceptions handling in many contemporary languages like C#, but I think that if you are going to do a sum type instead and force handling errors as a result type from functions you could at least use a proper Either monad and some form of monadic binding to remove boilerplate and enhance composition. (This was a problem with ColdFusion too. I can go on at length about some of the terrible "circuit breaker" boilerplate in that language and how tough it made handling errors correctly without killing entire applications.)

As for the ecosystem, most of what I've seen is a language that seems built for supply chain accidents (random github.com main branches as far as the eye can see) built by a company with a track record of developer tools that provide terrible developer experience that live in their own little bubble divorced from most of the rest of computing. (These are also things that seem very familiar to me from my brief horrifying time with ColdFusion.)

If golang works for you then that is great, but it upsets me to look at and right now you'd need to pay me a lot to have any interest of maintaining code written in it. I have enough scars from terrible things like ColdFusion on my resume.

I understand your viewpoint, but I think it's a bit too pessimistic. While we essentially don't know how to consistently write good code and deliver quality products on time (the whole industry, save for some niches, has this problem), it's also improbable that nothing we could try would get us closer to that ideal. Not too close to it, perhaps, and not in a matter of months, and not by simply switching one set of rules of thumb for another, but surely, there's got to be something that can have a noticeable impact. Especially over longer-term and in larger codebases.

Trying to replace X with Y, where both have similar expressive power and similar drawbacks (i.e. FP vs. OOP), won't help much. Not on its own, and not without many other conditions being met, including completely non-technical ones like the personality of a hiring manager. Surely, though, in every paradigm or style, it's possible to write better or worse code, right? So it should also be possible to create an environment where the code quality, on average, would be just a bit better than the norm.

I'm not looking for quick gains for a single project, but rather a medium-term strategy that can save the effort required to develop and maintain products. People who claim to know how to "get good code quick" are mostly swindlers, and it's really hard to confirm causality in practice, but we shouldn't give up on finding ways to get better-than-average results in development.

We are definitely having two different conversations.

I don't have much to say on the possible longevity of golang or not. Longevity is sort of guaranteed as soon as you write code in a language used in Production. Today's hip programming language is always tomorrow's terrible "legacy code" language. Someone has to support that long after the fact, whether or not the language itself ever remained in support or "alive". That sort of longevity is inevitable, per the law of averages.

I'm mostly just commenting on the ways that writing ColdFusion, in a brief window where it was a supported "alive" language, actively "hip" among certain types of baroque Enterprise development and developers, it still felt (to me at least) like prematurely writing "legacy" code. Single (arguably bad) vendor, bad error handling leading to lots of ugly boilerplate, bad development tools, bad ecosystem, et cetera. That's a lot of orthogonal concerns compared to longevity. ColdFusion had a longer supported longevity than is often credited for, but that doesn't really give a sense of how much it felt like a "dead man walking" even in all those supported years. ColdFusion to this day has a massive "legacy" longevity that is likely invisible to much of HN, but still likely fills plenty of ugly legacy code niches in dark matter Enterprise development even for a dead language, even despite it being a dead language, but the difference between today and when the language was "alive" doesn't feel all that dissimilar because it was always a zombie language in a zombie ecosystem.

Golang seems to me another "born (un)dead" language in that way, that even while it is actively supported certain things about it feel to me like "a dead language walking" (and all code in it feeling like "legacy code" even as it is written) and I think that's what I've been trying to find the right words to say for months now of seeing Go code in increasing places and having a bad gut reaction to it.

In that feeling of "born (un)dead", I don't see C there at all. It's impossible to argue that it isn't an alive language, with plenty of multi-vendor support and nearly always has been (even if it is definitely not the best language to work with in 2023). (Objective-C, rather than C, is easier to argue has had many decades of seeming "born (un)dead". For another modern example, I think you can make a case that Swift also fits closer to "born (un)dead", even though I like its error handling better, mostly, I think it seems healthier than Objective-C in some ways, and I don't hate looking at Swift example code in the same way that golang gives me the heeby jeebies.)