3 ms·
Maybe you're taking the blub paradox backwards. People think Go is worse than other languages because they look at it from a PL theory point of view, ignoring
by sacado2 8y ago
Maybe you're taking the blub paradox backwards.
People think Go is worse than other languages because they look at it from a PL theory point of view, ignoring the practical aspects. "Compilation speed? Trivial cross-compilation and deployment? Consistent coding style accross projects? Ability to recruit junior developers/maintainers? Warnings-as-errors? Who needs that?"
- coldtea 8y ago>Maybe you're taking the blub paradox backwards. People think Go is worse than other languages because they look at it from a PL theory point of view That's not the canonical version of the blub paradox though. In the canonical description it's the increased expression (due to advanced PL features like macros and closures) of the language that can't be appreciated by the blub programer. So, Go is the one that lacks those things. One could make a case that the other things you mention (compilation speed, cross compilation ease, etc) are also important and should be appreciated, but that wouldn't be the blub paradox. Besides, other languages can have those as well while keeping their advanced features (compilation speed aside, the rest are more about tooling work, which is orthogonal to the language. And D, for one, can compile as fast as Go, while still having Generics). https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/D_compilation_speed_vs._go_108831.html https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/D_compilati...