4 ms·

I can’t really see how it can fit anyone requirements given that you said in another comment that it encourages copying code around. That is the only sure way t

I can’t really see how it can fit anyone requirements given that you said in another comment that it encourages copying code around. That is the only sure way to ensure that your code is full of bugs and multiplies the hurdle of the maintenance for each of the copied implementations.

weberc2 8y ago
And yet in practice Go is delightfully robust. It’s not THE most robust—it’s not Rust or Haskell[^1]—but (in my experience) it’s certainly less buggy than Java and friends, C/C++, or virtually any dynamic language. It’s quite possible that copying is a liability as you claim, and that OOP, generics, and/or dynamic typing are simply greater liabilities, but I think that means you should evaluate languages on balance and not on the presence or absence of one feature or idiom. [^1]: Rust and Haskell pay for their marginal increase in robustness with a massive decrease in productivity.