3 ms·

If you're used to dynamic languages, it gives you type safety and performance for little effort. I love Python but always wished for a simple, type-safe langua

• pjmlp 10y ago
  Without support for meta-classes, annotations, generators, iterators and list comprehensions it surely is worse.
  • abecedarius 10y ago
    Goroutines and channels can substitute for generators and iterators, with maybe a downside of being too much more expressive.
  • SamWhited 10y ago
    Unless you're one of the people (like me) who considers its lack of many of those things a feature. More features doesn't necessarily make something "better" and less features doesn't necessarily make it "worse" (whatever your definition of "better" or "worse").
    • pjmlp 10y ago
      No I am not, I am no longer programming in the mid-90's and even on those days, Turbo Pascal had more features than Go. I only advocate Go as a replacement for those that would use C for user space applications, or possibly some kind of low level stuff. If Python and Ruby eco-systems had blessed compilers, instead of just CPython and MRI, I doubt people would be flocking to Go. We already see this happening in the Ruby world, just let Crystal become a bit more mature.
• solidsnack9000 10y ago
  Colleagues I've spoken with who use both still say, that Python is "20 times" as productive as Go. For some applications this multiplier likely goes down considerably; but Python holds an edge in a lot of areas.