4 ms·

This is a bit like saying that English is a language superior to Danish, because there are better books out there in English. I don't think this has anything t

by lqet 8y ago

This is a bit like saying that English is a language superior to Danish, because there are better books out there in English. I don't think this has anything to do with the language, it just happens that C++ ships with a much bigger standard library than Go.

Nimelrian 8y ago
It's much easier to implement in Javascript, too, even though JS has a much smaller standard library. The main problem is Go's lack of generics.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  indeed, currently the standard library of JS is incredibly small.
johannkokos 8y ago
> it just happens that C++ ships with a much bigger standard library than Go. I thought go had much bigger standard library. Go has archive, compression, crypto, database, encoding, hash, html, and net etc.
icebraining 8y ago
It does have to do with the language. Writing a generic Set type is trivial in many languages, yet hard in Go.
saagarjha 8y ago
Keep in mind that I’m not saying that C++ is a better language than Go here: I’d need a lot more evidence than an array deduplication routine to prove this. I’m just saying that Go is ill-suited for this particular task as compared to C++, and the author is struggling with this as they go through with implementing their algorithm; this leads them to settle on a clumsy and inefficient “solution” because there isn’t really a good alternative in the confines of the language that they chose. (FWIW, C++ does have a good standard library for implementing algorithms but this doesn’t really come into play here, since we’re not doing anything advanced. Any language with a set and filter would do the job. And for the record, I do think that C++ is a better language than Go, but I’m not going to argue it here because I don’t know the latter well enough to be confident in my viewpoint and don’t have enough space here to discuss it here if I did.)

by lqet 8y ago

Nimelrian 8y ago

It's much easier to implement in Javascript, too, even though JS has a much smaller standard library. The main problem is Go's lack of generics.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
indeed, currently the standard library of JS is incredibly small.

johannkokos 8y ago

> it just happens that C++ ships with a much bigger standard library than Go. I thought go had much bigger standard library. Go has archive, compression, crypto, database, encoding, hash, html, and net etc.

icebraining 8y ago

It does have to do with the language. Writing a generic Set type is trivial in many languages, yet hard in Go.

saagarjha 8y ago

Keep in mind that I’m not saying that C++ is a better language than Go here: I’d need a lot more evidence than an array deduplication routine to prove this. I’m just saying that Go is ill-suited for this particular task as compared to C++, and the author is struggling with this as they go through with implementing their algorithm; this leads them to settle on a clumsy and inefficient “solution” because there isn’t really a good alternative in the confines of the language that they chose. (FWIW, C++ does have a good standard library for implementing algorithms but this doesn’t really come into play here, since we’re not doing anything advanced. Any language with a set and filter would do the job. And for the record, I do think that C++ is a better language than Go, but I’m not going to argue it here because I don’t know the latter well enough to be confident in my viewpoint and don’t have enough space here to discuss it here if I did.)