3 ms·
I hate blog posts like this. It sounds like the author wants to turn Go into Java or Haskell. If that's what the author's preference is, then just use Java or
by steven2012 11y ago
I hate blog posts like this.
It sounds like the author wants to turn Go into Java or Haskell. If that's what the author's preference is, then just use Java or Haskell. I don't even use Go, but to me this post is simply just whining, but the author doesn't appear to understand the fundamental reason of how or why Go was designed.
The creators of Go made opinionated decisions on how the language would behave. Generics weren't left out because of oversight or accident, that was a conscious decision. Everything in his list was a conscious decision. Go is one of the most opinionated languages out there, and it's definitely not flexible to do whatever everyone wants. If you don't like it, then use another language. It's pretty simple.
- masklinn 11y ago> It sounds like the author wants to turn Go into Java Go is already a Java. It's just that by and large it's an old Java, 1.0~1.1 style. Slightly better in some ways (local type inference), slightly worse in others (more magical builtins). > Generics weren't left out because of oversight or accident, that was a conscious decision. So were they in Java 1.0. Or C# 1.0 for that matter. Though for the latter it was because of time constraints, they were never under any illusion that they should do without.