4 ms·

Perhaps it's characteristic of all language discussions, but Go articles seem to generate an extremely polarized set of comments. My other favored languages (Co

Perhaps it's characteristic of all language discussions, but Go articles seem to generate an extremely polarized set of comments. My other favored languages (Common Lisp, Nim, Rust, Smalltalk) tend to do the same thing, but in Go's case the passion seems so... misguided. In my opinion, Go is just such a bland-in-a-good-way language. And I enjoy writing it, for the record. Came back to it after a while not writing it and discovered warts I had missed before, but it's still pleasant. Can't help but think people just need to relax a bit when it comes to Go. Listen to Rob Pike speak about it compared to Rich speaking about Clojure: Go's not the language to get worked up about. (Please put generics in Go 2!)

cies 9y ago
> (Please put generics in Go 2!) This. At least this is easily added. But why there is "nil" in Go I find less excusable, mainly because this "feature" is not easily (impossibly) removed.
nine_k 9y ago
When "bland" means "prone to copy-paste boilerplate", its starts to sound less relaxing. It sounds more like tedious search-replace and looking for not making a typo when adapting the boilerplate to the next similar-but-sightly-different use case. It turns a developer back into a coder. What Go takes away is mostly tools of abstraction. Some of them are removed for a reasonably good reason (hard to implement in 1.x). Well, people end up with codegen tools that replace not only templates and generics but also the C preprocessor.