3 ms·

> Sometimes it feels like those who are the loudest critics of Go aren't even Go developers Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who didn't like what they saw when ta

> Sometimes it feels like those who are the loudest critics of Go aren't even Go developers Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who didn't like what they saw when taking a look at Go might well have chosen to work in other languages. This might be a basis on which to prioritize criticism -- certainly the criticisms of those who use a language are more important to those managing it than the complaints of those who don't use it -- but it's not a reasonable basis on which to disqualify criticism. And to point a criticism back: sometimes it feels like some of Go's loudest defenders don't choose to offer the discussion much beyond that response ("you're not really using it because if you were you'd see that the pain point you're describing is imaginary or not that bad or has plans to make plans to be fixed"). I don't begrudge anyone who likes it their happiness using it. I know people who really do like it. But I know people who gave it a fair shot didn't like it. Mine was 9 months of part-time work on a project before I settled into the conclusion that most of MJD's faint praise of Java (https://blog.plover.com/prog/Java.html https://blog.plover.com/prog/Java.html ) plus a few extra downsides applied to Go. Including, yes, the arguably generic-shaped hole. I also don't begrudge the stewards of the language their own solution to that problem or their own timeline for it. Presumably a similarly generous spirit should apply to complaints continuing to register. If the pothole is still in the road, it isn't surprising that observations about it continue to roll in even after plans to develop plans to fix it may have been announced.

laumars 8y ago
> This might be a basis on which to prioritize criticism Maybe if the language was unsuccessful then yes. But given the popularity in f Go it's fair to say the concerns of its existing user base should take precedence over those that may not use the language regardless. > certainly the criticisms of those who use a language are more important to those managing it than the complaints of those who don't use it -- but it's not a reasonable basis on which to disqualify criticism. But as this topic has demonstrated, those concerns haven't been disqualified out if hand either. > And to point a criticism back: sometimes it feels like some of Go's loudest defenders don't choose to offer the discussion much beyond that response ("you're not really using it because if you were you'd see that the pain point you're describing is imaginary or not that bad or has plans to make plans to be fixed"). I disagree that happens. In my first post I made the arguement about language stability (not breaking things). Others have made the arguement of simplicity and/or readability as well. I think the real issue is some people don't consider those good enough reasons so dismiss the counterarguments out if hand. Which is obviously an opinion you're entitled to but you have to remember that it's the stability and simplicity that has made Go popular in the first place so those points actually do matter to a great many of us. The thing is, there is already C#, Java, Rust, C++, and a great many other languages out there that have rich ecosystems and expressive semantics, Go has gone in a different direction by being a boring language. This direction clearly divides people though.

laumars 8y ago

> This might be a basis on which to prioritize criticism Maybe if the language was unsuccessful then yes. But given the popularity in f Go it's fair to say the concerns of its existing user base should take precedence over those that may not use the language regardless. > certainly the criticisms of those who use a language are more important to those managing it than the complaints of those who don't use it -- but it's not a reasonable basis on which to disqualify criticism. But as this topic has demonstrated, those concerns haven't been disqualified out if hand either. > And to point a criticism back: sometimes it feels like some of Go's loudest defenders don't choose to offer the discussion much beyond that response ("you're not really using it because if you were you'd see that the pain point you're describing is imaginary or not that bad or has plans to make plans to be fixed"). I disagree that happens. In my first post I made the arguement about language stability (not breaking things). Others have made the arguement of simplicity and/or readability as well. I think the real issue is some people don't consider those good enough reasons so dismiss the counterarguments out if hand. Which is obviously an opinion you're entitled to but you have to remember that it's the stability and simplicity that has made Go popular in the first place so those points actually do matter to a great many of us. The thing is, there is already C#, Java, Rust, C++, and a great many other languages out there that have rich ecosystems and expressive semantics, Go has gone in a different direction by being a boring language. This direction clearly divides people though.