3 ms·
I've learnt that programming languages, just like food and fashion, are a matter of taste to a high degree. You can point at awful smelling, too sugary meal and
by oxplot 8y ago
I've learnt that programming languages, just like food and fashion, are a matter of taste to a high degree. You can point at awful smelling, too sugary meal and call it crap. Someone else spends years perfecting it.
One's taste however can change: food with high sugar leads to heart disease and diabetes, so I better stop eating that favorite dish of mine. You keep doing that for a while and taste of sugar (or salt, or fat) becomes disgusting.
Statements like "Go is crap, it has no generics" originate from one's taste in programming languages so there is no arguing with that. However, talks about what generics (or exceptions etc.) does to the health of the programs you write that span time and other contributors, are no longer subjective matter, but an argument worth having. This is, where I think, Go's strength comes in: its careful development process that puts programs' and programmers' health at the top of the priority list.
Health is not the same as comfort. Taste of a dish you've had for years is comforting. You're not going to feel comfortable when the ingredients you've come to expect are taken away. But if you can get past that, you may end up living longer and healthier. Similarly, your programs may become more maintainable and long lasting.
No one, who is familiar with the philosophy and motivation behind Go, can claim that what I've said above is false. You can say that Go team is slow in progress, but that's what methodical and evidence based approach is like: slow. You need time to experiment, learn and evolve. You other favorite languages act like the general public who at hearing in the news that "coffee is good for you", starts drinking 10 cups a day. Go's approach is more along the scientific way.
- vram22 8y ago>I've learnt that programming languages, just like food and fashion, are a matter of taste to a high degree. You can point at awful smelling, too sugary meal and call it crap. Someone else spends years perfecting it. Programming languages ... food ... fashion ... taste ... Time to pull out that old chestnut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandu... I agree.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- opless 8y agoSugar is not a direct cause of diabetes. So you might want to rethink your analogies in future. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eating-with-diabetes/diabetes-food-myths/myth-sugar-causes-diabetes https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eat...
- Valmar 8y agoRight ~ sugar, namely fructose, is an indirect cause of diabetes. Fructose over-consumption -> insulin resistance -> diabetes. Heart disease follows. Cholesterol is just the scapegoat for fructose over-consumption's horrifying effects. Cholesterol is used by the body to try and patch up all of the damage it causes. Cholesterol is used almost literally everywhere in the body, from hormones, to cell linings, etc.