3 ms·
I read the name "Have" as "Haxe" [1] and thought it was a subset of their cross-platform toolkit. I cannot think of many use cases (a transpiler for a system pr
by guessmyname 10y ago
I read the name "Have" as "Haxe" [1] and thought it was a subset of their cross-platform toolkit. I cannot think of many use cases (a transpiler for a system programming language) because Go in itself is very simple, which is one of the main reasons so many developers from other communities have switched, because with a short list of reserved keywords, C-like syntax, and simplicity of its standard library people can do amazing things.
At least it will provide Generics [2] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Would you use a project like this? If yes, for what?
[1] https://haxe.org/ https://haxe.org/
[2] http://havelang.org/post/for_gophers/#generics http://havelang.org/post/for_gophers/#generics
- nouney 10y agoNo I wouldn't. I can't see any reasons to use Have.
- echelon 10y agoI'm already becoming really productive in Rust, so I haven't had any reason to really pick up Go. (We do use it at our company, but I mostly work in Java, Ruby, and TypeScript.) That said, the idea of a transpiled language that adds generics definitely piques my interest. Ultimately, I suppose I would be worried of the language stalling or falling out of favor, like CoffeeScript. The name choice doesn't seem that well thought out, which also makes me question the authors somewhat.
- wowoc 10y agoI think the issue with CoffeeScript was that it didn't add anything beyond the arguably prettier syntax. Have changes the syntax too, but it is also trying to fix things that often cause bugs in Go code, it adds generics, and there are a few other features on the way, too.