4 ms·

The blogger has completely missed the entire purpose of Go. I suggest anyone who actually wants info one way or the other to read the Preface in Alan Donovan an

by poorman 11y ago

The blogger has completely missed the entire purpose of Go. I suggest anyone who actually wants info one way or the other to read the Preface in Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan's "The Go Programming Language". You will then understand why Go is the way it is and why all the negative points (in his mind) this blogger listed, are not in the language.

wyager 11y ago
> read the Preface in Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan's "The Go Programming Language" I have read it :) I think it's both misguided and misleading. It's misguided because they have the wrong idea about simplicity, and it's misleading because they claim that Go is "radically simple". Go isn't really that simple; it's just inconveniently incapable.
- SneakerXZ 11y ago
  Well said!
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > It's misguided because they have the wrong idea about simplicity... No, it's not your idea of simplicity. It's not wrong, it's different. That's all. You're falling into the "my way is the right way" arrogance that so many here are accusing the Go advocates of.
  - wyager 11y ago
    >No, it's not your idea of simplicity. It's not wrong, it's different. What is your point? That words have no objective meaning and no one can ever be wrong ever? I'm operating under the assumption that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to mine. Go is not simple under a very broad definition of "not simple". I'm not saying using Go is the wrong way to do things; I'm saying this classification is misleading.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > I'm operating under the assumption that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to mine. Perhaps you shouldn't assume that. But whether you're right or wrong in assuming that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to yours, it's another step to say that Donovan and Kernighan's definition is wrong. It's that second step that I'm criticizing you for. Plaugher has been very clear about what he means by "simplicity" in Go. (I suspect the same is true of Donovan and Kernighan, though I haven't read their intro.) So, yes, the word "simple" has a clearly defined meaning for them. It also has a different, perhaps less clearly defined, meaning for you. Again, it's fine for you to disagree. But to say that their definition is wrong? That sounds both arrogant and childish. More to the point, it seems unlikely that you are right that their definition is [objectively] wrong. [Edit: Where did Go come from? It came from trying to solve the problems of working on ten-million-line code bases for a decade or two. That experience gave them definite ideas about what "simplicity" means. It's fair to say that most people don't have that definition. But you don't have the right to say their definition is wrong unless you've worked in that environment long enough to know what the problems are.]

by poorman 11y ago

wyager 11y ago

> read the Preface in Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan's "The Go Programming Language" I have read it :) I think it's both misguided and misleading. It's misguided because they have the wrong idea about simplicity, and it's misleading because they claim that Go is "radically simple". Go isn't really that simple; it's just inconveniently incapable.

SneakerXZ 11y ago
Well said!
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> It's misguided because they have the wrong idea about simplicity... No, it's not your idea of simplicity. It's not wrong, it's different. That's all. You're falling into the "my way is the right way" arrogance that so many here are accusing the Go advocates of.
- wyager 11y ago
  >No, it's not your idea of simplicity. It's not wrong, it's different. What is your point? That words have no objective meaning and no one can ever be wrong ever? I'm operating under the assumption that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to mine. Go is not simple under a very broad definition of "not simple". I'm not saying using Go is the wrong way to do things; I'm saying this classification is misleading.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > I'm operating under the assumption that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to mine. Perhaps you shouldn't assume that. But whether you're right or wrong in assuming that most people have a definition of simplicity that's similar to yours, it's another step to say that Donovan and Kernighan's definition is wrong. It's that second step that I'm criticizing you for. Plaugher has been very clear about what he means by "simplicity" in Go. (I suspect the same is true of Donovan and Kernighan, though I haven't read their intro.) So, yes, the word "simple" has a clearly defined meaning for them. It also has a different, perhaps less clearly defined, meaning for you. Again, it's fine for you to disagree. But to say that their definition is wrong? That sounds both arrogant and childish. More to the point, it seems unlikely that you are right that their definition is [objectively] wrong. [Edit: Where did Go come from? It came from trying to solve the problems of working on ten-million-line code bases for a decade or two. That experience gave them definite ideas about what "simplicity" means. It's fair to say that most people don't have that definition. But you don't have the right to say their definition is wrong unless you've worked in that environment long enough to know what the problems are.]