3 ms·

Or literally any statically-typed language I know of after C. I suppose it's possible there's some language I'm unaware of that has managed to somehow provide l

Or literally any statically-typed language I know of after C. I suppose it's possible there's some language I'm unaware of that has managed to somehow provide less type-checking than Go, but it's certainly not a commonly-used one.

jsmith0295 10y ago
It's not really a matter of less or more in my opinion. Java has more type checking, but it doesn't give you much more safety than Go, and it's a lot more cumbersome. In general I find Go's type system to be better than Java's because of this.
- devishard 10y ago
  I think that Java can definitely provide significantly more protection than Go, but I do agree that Java's horrible namespacing conventions and lack of type inference makes it cumbersome. So what, you're on par with a 20 year old language? C# for example learned from Java's mistakes; why couldn't Go?
  - jsmith0295 10y ago
    I think I just don't come across situations where I find myself needing generics in the software that I typically write. I can imagine it would suck in those situations. There is a workaround for it, though. Basically you write a template and do code generation off of that to sort of approximate generics. I've never done it myself, though.
    - devishard 10y ago
      > I think I just don't come across situations where I find myself needing generics in the software that I typically write. You don't need generics, sure. You can write working code in assembly, too. But abstractions catch more of your mistakes for you. > There is a workaround for it, though. Basically you write a template and do code generation off of that to sort of approximate generics. I've never done it myself, though. So, basically slightly more powerful macros, like in C, with most of the pitfalls and dangers associated with them. There are better approaches to these problems.

3 ms·

Or literally any statically-typed language I know of after C. I suppose it's possible there's some language I'm unaware of that has managed to somehow provide l

by devishard 10y ago

jsmith0295 10y ago
It's not really a matter of less or more in my opinion. Java has more type checking, but it doesn't give you much more safety than Go, and it's a lot more cumbersome. In general I find Go's type system to be better than Java's because of this.
- devishard 10y ago
  I think that Java can definitely provide significantly more protection than Go, but I do agree that Java's horrible namespacing conventions and lack of type inference makes it cumbersome. So what, you're on par with a 20 year old language? C# for example learned from Java's mistakes; why couldn't Go?
  - jsmith0295 10y ago
    I think I just don't come across situations where I find myself needing generics in the software that I typically write. I can imagine it would suck in those situations. There is a workaround for it, though. Basically you write a template and do code generation off of that to sort of approximate generics. I've never done it myself, though.
    - devishard 10y ago
      > I think I just don't come across situations where I find myself needing generics in the software that I typically write. You don't need generics, sure. You can write working code in assembly, too. But abstractions catch more of your mistakes for you. > There is a workaround for it, though. Basically you write a template and do code generation off of that to sort of approximate generics. I've never done it myself, though. So, basically slightly more powerful macros, like in C, with most of the pitfalls and dangers associated with them. There are better approaches to these problems.