3 ms·

I don't think you understood my analogy. Go supposed to be Toki Pona. I'm saying that once you are used to a language that's more powerful you feel constrained

by takeda 10y ago

I don't think you understood my analogy. Go supposed to be Toki Pona. I'm saying that once you are used to a language that's more powerful you feel constrained. I know many languages and some bring interesting things to the table, go doesn't really deliver (at least based on the hype). The concurrency supposed to be the killer feature, but it is limited to specific cases. BTW: The Go is not subset of Java if anything it's very similar to Algol-68 (http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/)

weberc2 10y ago
> I'm saying that once you are used to a language that's more powerful you feel constrained. I did misunderstand your point, though I don't find this one more compelling. While Java has more features than Go, the only one I would consider to be "more powerful" would be generics. > The concurrency supposed to be the killer feature, but it is limited to specific cases. How do you figure? To which specific cases is it limited? How is Java better? > BTW: The Go is not subset of Java if anything it's very similar to Algol-68 My argument wasn't that Go is most similar to Java; only that Go's featureset is almost a strict subset of Java's. Go gives you tighter control over memory and a better concurrency story, but most of the rest of it looks the same.