Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Go's type system is weak. It is strong enough for me. I see the lack of algebraic data types and type classes as a feature, honestly. It means I can learn the things I need and start working in 2 days instead of in 2 weeks or a month. I sometimes need generics, but not frequently enough to miss them. You think Go's type system is weak. I think Haskell's type system is overcomplicated. So, there.
Even if it were true that it were overly complicated, that wouldn't change the fact that it's much more powerful than Go's. “When I work at this system up to 12hrs a day, I’m profoundly uninterested in what user interface a novice user would prefer.” —Erik Naggum Are you using visual basic because you could pick it up in 2 days instead of taking a month to learn Go? It's easy to learn because it doesn't do anything i…
Bringing The Language Which Shall not Be Named to the discussion is a low blow. But I deserve it. My phrase about overcomplication was flamebaity and uncalled for, and I apologize.
> you're missing out on simple beautiful abstractions like map and filter
The thing is, in Go, those take almost as much space as a plain for loop.
I know, you will tell me "that's because Go's too verbose". I will grant that it's more verbose than Haskell.
But I am not doing maps and filters all the time in my code.
> It's not possible to write a generic container without casts to interface{}, which is a shame imo.
My point is that generic containers are the feature where generics are genuinely needed. And in those cases interface{} makes it possible. Not super-awesome, but possible. I actually like that the language doesn't bend over to fulfill something that looks almost like an edge case. It is not "programming with mathematics". It's still "moving bits around". But the bits can be moved with ease.