4 ms·

I think the value of simplicity is often underestimated, especially by really smart people. Go's bare-bones practical, opinionated simplicity can eliminate, ri

I think the value of simplicity is often underestimated, especially by really smart people. Go's bare-bones practical, opinionated simplicity can eliminate, right from the start, huge numbers of decision points developers might face any given day while using more complex and expressive languages, with plethoras of elegant abstractions to fit every situation. Thats really valuable IMHO, when any one of those decision points can lead to technical debt, or lost time and energy on internal (and external) technical debates. Its an especially huge win when building software to perform necessarily complex work (like distributed container orchestration).

nerpderp83 8y ago
Go is simplistic, not simple. Bug densities are largely constant across languages, so the less expressive language will enable more bugs.
- ainar-g 8y ago
  >Bug densities are largely constant across languages I would like a citation on that. I remember there being a study on how several groups of students would solve a problem in C, Go, and Rust. I can't find the link unfortunately, but IIRC, the conclusion was that C was the "buggiest" and Rust the "safest" with Go being in the middle, but the speed of development was much higher for Go and C.