4 ms·

So by "bad", I mean 20 years behind other languages that live in the same niche. Lack of generics and a modern type system (assuming you go the type system rout

So by "bad", I mean 20 years behind other languages that live in the same niche. Lack of generics and a modern type system (assuming you go the type system route) is actually a really bad thing. If you want a middle ground between Python, there are already great options that provide everything Go does and more, for example Java, Scala, Common Lisp, Haskell and Rust. Lisp is a bit closer to the dynamic/slow side, Haskell/Java/Scala are more or less Pareto superior to Go, and Rust is a little closer to the static/fast/unsafe side. But unlike Go, Haskell/Scala/Java expect you to learn a few things before you can be really productive in them.

ixtli 10y ago
While I'm not sure I agree with your entire point I think it's clear that not only do people not appreciate the _generations_ of hard work you're leaving behind when you abandon LLVM/Clang/etc or languages with powerful type systems but they actively resist understanding this. Put simply I don't think people disagree with the "20 years behind" thing, I actually think they don't understand what you mean.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Yes, that's because they are code monkeys who are unwilling to put the effort into learning something new. (An uncharitable, but perhaps effective way to phrase it.) My proposal is simply that we don't treat this anti-intellectualism with kid gloves.
  - ixtli 10y ago
    I'm fine with that, though I have noticed in years participating in _this_ community that it vocally penalizes strongly worded criticism. This is, of course, stupid.
mindslight 10y ago
I haven't used Go (lack of pattern matching is a non-starter for me), but the lack of generics seems like more of a decision to place it halfway between typed and untyped. I don't think it's valid to assert that any typed language is deficient if it does not have an expressive type system. (I completely agree with your original point. "Worse is better" is not meant to be an equivalence)
ThatGeoGuy 10y ago
> Lisp is a bit closer to the dynamic/slow side This is a nitpick for sure, but Lisp via SBCL is hardly on the "slow side." This isn't 1970 anymore. Perhaps this is evident of "contempt culture" and how we propagate memes of fast vs. slow, types are good vs. types are restricting, and other non-specific comparisons.

ixtli 10y ago

While I'm not sure I agree with your entire point I think it's clear that not only do people not appreciate the _generations_ of hard work you're leaving behind when you abandon LLVM/Clang/etc or languages with powerful type systems but they actively resist understanding this. Put simply I don't think people disagree with the "20 years behind" thing, I actually think they don't understand what you mean.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Yes, that's because they are code monkeys who are unwilling to put the effort into learning something new. (An uncharitable, but perhaps effective way to phrase it.) My proposal is simply that we don't treat this anti-intellectualism with kid gloves.
- ixtli 10y ago
  I'm fine with that, though I have noticed in years participating in _this_ community that it vocally penalizes strongly worded criticism. This is, of course, stupid.

mindslight 10y ago

I haven't used Go (lack of pattern matching is a non-starter for me), but the lack of generics seems like more of a decision to place it halfway between typed and untyped. I don't think it's valid to assert that any typed language is deficient if it does not have an expressive type system. (I completely agree with your original point. "Worse is better" is not meant to be an equivalence)

ThatGeoGuy 10y ago

> Lisp is a bit closer to the dynamic/slow side This is a nitpick for sure, but Lisp via SBCL is hardly on the "slow side." This isn't 1970 anymore. Perhaps this is evident of "contempt culture" and how we propagate memes of fast vs. slow, types are good vs. types are restricting, and other non-specific comparisons.