4 ms·
Maybe I'm not following HN closely enough, but judging from this post, it seems that people are pointing out what they dislike about Go, instead of just heaping
by CodeMage 9y ago
Maybe I'm not following HN closely enough, but judging from this post, it seems that people are pointing out what they dislike about Go, instead of just heaping abuse on it. In my view, that's a positive and productive thing, for several reasons:
1) The discussion gives insight to people who have never used Go. The usual way of getting that kind of knowledge is to shoot yourself in the foot and learn from it.
2) The back-and-forth can provide useful advice on how to work around certain problems in Go.
3) Language designers can always use these discussions to guide and inform their decisions. "Hmmmm, haven't thought of that, better make sure my language doesn't do this; that other thing is an acceptable tradeoff, though."
- andyfleming 9y agoGreat points! Additionally, I think it's important to point out the flaws or, maybe better-put "trade-offs" of technologies, especially when they are very popular. I think it's important to temper the hype and share collective engineering wisdom.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aaronarduino 9y agoI agree with both you and the parent comment. It's just off-putting to have titles like "Why I Don't Like Golang" and articles that give no other value except for pointing to the perceived negatives. I think more constructive articles and titles would be like "What I Wish I Could Change About Golang" and would include background on how long the author has been writing Go and in what context.
- andyfleming 9y agoI agree. Using less antagonistic language and providing more context would both be great.