4 ms·
>I really found "still" to be funny because I think for many Go devs (including me) the simplicity and lack of features especially enables us to create more eas
by flavio81 8y ago
>I really found "still" to be funny because I think for many Go devs (including me) the simplicity and lack of features especially enables us to create more easily.
Yeah man, it must be so fun doing large-scale construction work with just a hammer and a shovel; so easy to use, so easy to learn. Who needs caterpillars, pneumatic drills and such.
Last time I checked, Brainfuck is easier to learn than Go (more simplicity!!!, and runs in even more platforms.
- ecnahc515 8y agoThe Amish manage to build large barns entirely like this in much less time than it would take the average construction firm. It depends heavily on what you're building on if you actually need a lot of those tools. Just like if you're building a small tool to wrap another you might just choose to use bash over Java, it all comes down to what you need most commonly vs what would "be nice to have".
- flavio81 8y ago>>large-scale construction work >build large barns entirely Not the same 'large-scale' construction work I had in mind.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- fileeditview 8y agoYour reply seems a little emotional.. I wonder why. Nobody is forcing Go on you. You can do all large-scale construction work with greater tools like Lisp or Haskell as it is commonly done. I don't agree that Go has only "a hammer and a shovel". It has at least a saw in its toolbox too. On a more serious note.. fun is highly subjective and the brainfuck / simplicity argument is just useless.