> After a decade of OOP indoctrination and misuse, we see the results of this. Sure, but that's OO's fault and the lesson is not "abstractions are bad" but rat

> After a decade of OOP indoctrination and misuse, we see the results of this. Sure, but that's OO's fault and the lesson is not "abstractions are bad" but rather, "OO's good at domain abstractions and bad at universal abstractions." The takeaway should not be to discard the last 12 years of advances in computer science and call it quits with a bad copy of Erlang's concurrency model and a weak version of C. > This lends me to believe you actually haven't written any go code for yourself. I've written about 5000 lines. So not a ton, but enough to have shipped Go to prod and be capable of reading it. > This is the same thing every OOP-indoctrinated developer (Usually Java or C#) has said before. Go is more OOP-focused with its weak interface{} methodology than anything I promote or have used joyfully in the last 6 years. Even the most cursory examination of my presence will reveal that. Please don't put words in my mouth to tidy your argument.