4 ms·
> I'm pretty sure that the designers of Go have more exposure to modern type theory than the modern-type theorists have experience with maintaining ten million
by spriggan3 11y ago
> I'm pretty sure that the designers of Go have more exposure to modern type theory than the modern-type theorists have experience with maintaining ten million lines of code for two decades.
See, the problem right here."Go designers know better than everybody else". No they don't. The standard library itself is totally inconsistent and goes against what Go designers themselves promoted as being idiomatic.
> The point of Go was not to be "up to date" on type theory.
Sure it's a dynamically typed language that mascarades itself as a statically typed one, a bit like C with its void pointers everywhere... Except it doesn't have C macros, which makes it even more painful to program than C.
- XorNot 11y agoThe standard library is abstracting over a lot of non-idiomatic surface area of kernel interfaces.
- _ak 11y agoNobody claims that they know better than everybody else, that's just your words, which you then contradict without the slightest bit of evidence. Truth is, the Go developera have a proven track record over several decades, and that gives their ways of doing things certainly more weight than those of young whippersnappers who have never built several operating systems, programming languages, or other large and complex pieces of software.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago> See, the problem right here."Go designers know better than everybody else". No they don't. The Go designers know the problem area that they're trying to solve better than (almost) everybody else.