4 ms·
>> ..., and extreme abstraction capabilities in high level languages like Common Lisp, ... > Go has everything you mention in both of your lists of desirable a
by nothrabannosir 11y ago
>> ..., and extreme abstraction capabilities in high level languages like Common Lisp, ...
> Go has everything you mention in both of your lists of desirable attributes (depending perhaps on what you mean by "extreme abstraction")
"perhaps"? By whose definition would it ever even come close to "extreme abstraction"? All of us assembly programmers, maybe?
Don't get me wrong, I use Go where it makes sense. It has pros and cons. I'm literally programming Go right now. But "extreme abstraction"... you need more than "perhaps" to qualify that.
Or was that his point and did I just completely miss the joke? Actually, that's probably it.
- howeyc 11y agoYou missed what Donovan said, which answered the question. Obviously PL-enthusiasts (give me all the shiny! all the time!) wont like the answer though.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nothrabannosir 11y agoAbsolutely agree with what he said, and I agree it answers the question. And I agree with what you said, it's not a great answer for everybody, but it's an answer. Yet still, Kernighan said what he said.
- sanderjd 11y agoI don't really understand the claim that generic programming is "shiny". It is an old idea that has been implemented many times. It's totally fine that the Go team left out generics – it's their decision – but denigrating people who lament that decision as shiny-chasing PL-enthusiasts is unfair.