4 ms·

"I dislike Go because I agree with the criticisms of it and I'm afraid I might end up having to maintain code written in it one day" and: "I also don't like G

by jb613 11y ago

"I dislike Go because I agree with the criticisms of it and I'm afraid I might end up having to maintain code written in it one day" and: "I also don't like Go much, but it's not because it challenges my identity" You are EXACTLY who the article is talking about. One of Go's selling points is maintainability. Go's inherent bias towards maintainability challenges your identity.

sievebrain 11y ago
Selling points are not facts, they're just arguments people who are trying to sell something like to make. Go's users and designers make all sorts of claims about it. As it happens, I've evaluated them and find that I often disagree with them. For instance, Go projects often don't specify the versions of their dependencies and choose to just clone the code into their own source tree instead - if you're lucky. If you aren't then the project simply depends on whatever is found in the dependencies git master branch. I find this to be poor practice from several perspectives, maintainability amongst them.
- jb613 11y ago
  "Selling points are not facts" except when talking about maintainability, you are not talking about facts. Show me the "fact" that Go is hard to maintain.
  - sievebrain 11y ago
    I never said code written in Go is hard to maintain. I said I don't want to maintain it, because I don't want to debug or write Go myself. You're arguing with a straw man.
    - jb613 11y ago
      the article is suggesting that when people say they don't want to debug or write in Go is because it challenges their previously formed beliefs in what they believe they need from a language. The fact that there may be another way or that projects are increasingly succeeding, challenges their identity.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    Counterpoint: Show the fact that Go is easy to maintain. The language is, honestly, too young to have much "rubber meets the road" legacy code for anyone to make a strong evidential case with. It's all theory until a decade from now.
  - dkersten 11y ago
    The burden of proof is on the people making the "selling points" to prove that they are true -- in this case, if the Go community claim that Go is easy to maintain, the burden of proof should be on them. (Note: I'm not arguing for or against this point; I've never used Go, so couldn't possibly know)
acron0 11y ago
Isn't that fairly subjective? Some people find Lisp hard to parse and therefore to maintain but that doesn't mean it's inherently unmaintainable.
- jb613 11y ago
  Yes totally subjective - different people work on different projects which eventually opinions are formed from. I don't think Go was intended to improve upon any Lisp deficiency.

by jb613 11y ago

sievebrain 11y ago

Selling points are not facts, they're just arguments people who are trying to sell something like to make. Go's users and designers make all sorts of claims about it. As it happens, I've evaluated them and find that I often disagree with them. For instance, Go projects often don't specify the versions of their dependencies and choose to just clone the code into their own source tree instead - if you're lucky. If you aren't then the project simply depends on whatever is found in the dependencies git master branch. I find this to be poor practice from several perspectives, maintainability amongst them.

jb613 11y ago
"Selling points are not facts" except when talking about maintainability, you are not talking about facts. Show me the "fact" that Go is hard to maintain.
- sievebrain 11y ago
  I never said code written in Go is hard to maintain. I said I don't want to maintain it, because I don't want to debug or write Go myself. You're arguing with a straw man.
  - jb613 11y ago
    the article is suggesting that when people say they don't want to debug or write in Go is because it challenges their previously formed beliefs in what they believe they need from a language. The fact that there may be another way or that projects are increasingly succeeding, challenges their identity.
- fixermark 11y ago
  Counterpoint: Show the fact that Go is easy to maintain. The language is, honestly, too young to have much "rubber meets the road" legacy code for anyone to make a strong evidential case with. It's all theory until a decade from now.
- dkersten 11y ago
  The burden of proof is on the people making the "selling points" to prove that they are true -- in this case, if the Go community claim that Go is easy to maintain, the burden of proof should be on them. (Note: I'm not arguing for or against this point; I've never used Go, so couldn't possibly know)

acron0 11y ago

Isn't that fairly subjective? Some people find Lisp hard to parse and therefore to maintain but that doesn't mean it's inherently unmaintainable.

jb613 11y ago
Yes totally subjective - different people work on different projects which eventually opinions are formed from. I don't think Go was intended to improve upon any Lisp deficiency.