3 ms·
I'm pretty sure you are in the minority — REPLs are provably immensely popular, for example (I've never heard anyone criticize their usefulness). Sometimes I w
by lobster_johnson 11y ago
I'm pretty sure you are in the minority — REPLs are provably immensely popular, for example (I've never heard anyone criticize their usefulness).
Sometimes I write code like you do. At other times I'm "feeling out" a solution and want the language to not fight my half-baked, messy (but syntactically valid!) program. At other times I'm writing a quick and dirty script I will use today and never after; it doesn't need to be pretty, only functional. But Go wants your code to always be fully realized and clean, which just doesn't mesh with reality.
We don't need "universal critiques". Everyone has a style, and a good, mainstream programming language needs to be receptive to those styles.
- sagichmal 11y ago> Go wants your code to always be fully realized and clean, which just doesn't mesh with reality. It certainly meshes with my reality.
- lobster_johnson 11y agoSure. Great. However, there are other realities outside yours.
- sagichmal 11y ago...yes, of course. Acknowledging the diverse set of realities is the point of my original comment :)
- lobster_johnson 11y ago...But the fact that it is diverse is the exact problem that Go doesn't address.
- sagichmal 11y agoA language isn't obliged to serve all realities equally. Quite the opposite: a language, a framework, a system -- a product -- should carve out a set of contexts that it's explicitly targeting, and fiercely guard those boundaries. Otherwise, you get terrible products that are nothing more than the lesser sum of their features, like JIRA, or Scala.
- lobster_johnson 11y agoThis is about basic ergonomy, though.