3 ms·
I actually think Go's simplicity is a weakness because it will only get you so far. Take web development for example, all the tutorials show json.Unmarshall, bu
by jonesb6 11y ago
I actually think Go's simplicity is a weakness because it will only get you so far. Take web development for example, all the tutorials show json.Unmarshall, but this one stackoverflow post says I should use json.Decode. Oh shoot now I'm having all sorts of problems because I don't really understand json.Decode.
Furthermore I think most people reach for Golang in the beginning because they want performance. However I've found it incredibly easy to write unperformant Go.
I think Golang will ultimately be a very important stepping stone in language development in terms of concurrency, type systems, standard libraries, deployability, and many other categories. I think a lot of important programs will be written in it. And ultimately I look forward to how future languages draw from it.
- masklinn 11y ago> I think Golang will ultimately be a very important stepping stone in language development in terms of concurrency, type systems "stepping stone" usually implies progress and Golang was a regression on both fronts, and while its deployment story is ok that's in no small part because it just opts to statically link everything by default, which the field has been going back and forth on basically since the beginning.
- wfsfw4w44 11y agoYour issue here (obviously), is going to stack overflow for advice.
- jerf 11y ago"Take web development for example, all the tutorials show json.Unmarshall, but this one stackoverflow post says I should use json.Decode." Plenty of JSON libraries in plenty of languages have both a function to decode JSON and an object that allows you to decode JSON with some settings. That's not really a Go-specific issue.
- shitgoose 11y ago"I actually think Go's simplicity is a weakness because it will only get you so far." Some may argue that Go's simplicity is a strength. Adding moving parts doesn't always help.