4 ms·
I don't disagree with your conclusion necessarily, especially given that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance with respect to Go, but I'm surprised by your
by existencebox 11y ago
I don't disagree with your conclusion necessarily, especially given that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance with respect to Go, but I'm surprised by your statement about python and functional style. Coming from Ocaml, I found python to be one of the more accommodating languages in terms of maintaining the style I had built up in the former. (I do certainly acknowledge many examples for which this contradicts, immutability being a major point, but I can think of more situations where I was able to use similar design patterns than when I wasn't.) What in particular did you find lacking?
This all may be the ramblings of someone basing their opinions on "code I've written that has worked" and not on some higher standard of design patterns, so feel free to ignore if that's not productive :)
This ties into other thoughts I have rattling around about treating languages as specialty tools with well prescribed patterns, vs the trend to implement some subset of common lisp as the saying goes, but not well formulated enough to expound on them here. Broadly; I'm not sure which paradigm I prefer. (Having a big toolbox of specialty tools is nice, but if one tool can easily eat the functionality of another tool, I tend to side on considering that option.)