4 ms·
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 ab
by 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 agoI 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 agothe 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 agoCounterpoint: 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 agoThe 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)