4 ms·
I programmed in Java and Haskell and have made the switch to Go some time ago for my current position. I don't miss them - it's just a different way of program
by Insanity 8y ago
I programmed in Java and Haskell and have made the switch to Go some time ago for my current position.
I don't miss them - it's just a different way of programming but I've not ran into a problem that I couldn't overcome because they are missing.
OTOH, I've shot myself in the foot quite a few times with Generics.
Honestly, just _try_ it for longer than an exploratory session. Try to build something big with it, and see if you still miss it.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoAs a rule I don't learn "trendy" things until the fad period dies off (be it a netflix show, a product, an app, a diet, or a language). But basically lodash is my bread-and-butter. Could such a library even exist in a language without generics?
- Insanity 8y agoThe question is, why _should_ such a thing exist in a language without generics? It's just a different programming paradigm. Program into a language, don't program in a language. The functional approach is just one way to solve the problem. Also, as a side-note, when I program at home I'll often take a functional language. It's just a different way of programming and I do like FP (Haskell mainly). But Go is different, not worse or better.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoI will probably never opt-into a language for the rest of my life that is not-hybrid (able to be functional or procedural). Because hybrid is objectively better than only supporting one.
- Insanity 8y agoIt's not 'objectively better' to be honest. Offering two ways of doing the same thing can lead to a non-uniform codebase, and can lead to people being 'experts' in functional and others being experts in procedural. And at some point, the procedural guys will get a mindfuck reading the functional people their code. (We had something similar happen).