4 ms·

> Except it does though, since that's the very behaviour you're complaining about. No, the meaning was: if someone cannot handle unused things, that someone is

by junke 10y ago

> Except it does though, since that's the very behaviour you're complaining about. No, the meaning was: if someone cannot handle unused things, that someone is screwed. Go will not save him in other aspects which require a little bit of discipline and are not checked by the compiler.

sagichmal 10y ago
This is literally the "perfect is the enemy of the good" fallacy.
mcphage 10y ago
> if someone cannot handle unused things, that someone is screwed. So what you're saying is, there are two kinds of people—those who don't need the feature, and those for whom the feature isn't sufficient?
- junke 10y ago
  User laumars was apparently misinterpreting part of a comment by saying that "unused" errors (not warnings, but errors) would in fact save the hypothetical "someone" that was claimed to be not disciplined enough to remove unused imports at release time. But the parent comment was in fact saying that the disability to handle something as simple as unused imports would prevent said programmer to accomplish the less trivial things that programmers are expected to do and for which no tools is a substitute for. My personal view on this is that warning the user should be enough. The compiler designer is basically saying: I can't trust developers to fix warnings and it is my duty to protect them from their own laziness by enforcing a certain way of working. This apparently attracts a certain kind of people. I prefer to be the one telling the compiler what to do, instead of the reverse.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > My personal view on this is that warning the user should be enough. The compiler designer is basically saying: I can't trust developers to fix warnings and it is my duty to protect them from their own laziness by enforcing a certain way of working. This apparently attracts a certain kind of people. I prefer to be the one telling the compiler what to do, instead of the reverse. I'm with you there, I just was making a snarky comment :-)

by junke 10y ago

sagichmal 10y ago

This is literally the "perfect is the enemy of the good" fallacy.

mcphage 10y ago

> if someone cannot handle unused things, that someone is screwed. So what you're saying is, there are two kinds of people—those who don't need the feature, and those for whom the feature isn't sufficient?

junke 10y ago
User laumars was apparently misinterpreting part of a comment by saying that "unused" errors (not warnings, but errors) would in fact save the hypothetical "someone" that was claimed to be not disciplined enough to remove unused imports at release time. But the parent comment was in fact saying that the disability to handle something as simple as unused imports would prevent said programmer to accomplish the less trivial things that programmers are expected to do and for which no tools is a substitute for. My personal view on this is that warning the user should be enough. The compiler designer is basically saying: I can't trust developers to fix warnings and it is my duty to protect them from their own laziness by enforcing a certain way of working. This apparently attracts a certain kind of people. I prefer to be the one telling the compiler what to do, instead of the reverse.
- mcphage 10y ago
  > My personal view on this is that warning the user should be enough. The compiler designer is basically saying: I can't trust developers to fix warnings and it is my duty to protect them from their own laziness by enforcing a certain way of working. This apparently attracts a certain kind of people. I prefer to be the one telling the compiler what to do, instead of the reverse. I'm with you there, I just was making a snarky comment :-)