3 ms·
> proper software engineering Only if you define this in such a way that it's tautologically true. If your definition of software engineering incorporates some
by weberc2 7y ago
> proper software engineering
Only if you define this in such a way that it's tautologically true. If your definition of software engineering incorporates some degree of economic success, then no, these languages don't work well.
I'm sure someone will be tempted to levee this strawman argument: "But lots of languages drive projects that make more money than Go!" Note that I never claimed market success was the sole criteria.
- pjmlp 7y agoWell, then pick C++, Java and C# instead. All of them provide more features for software engineering at large scale that Go is still catching up with, hence Go 2.0 proposals.
- weberc2 7y agoThere’s no evidence that those languages are better at engineering at scale than Go is. In particular, all of them are riddled with anti-features e.g., inheritance and all of them have ridiculously convoluted tooling (especially build tooling a la CMake). If I want to get something done, especially in a team setting, I’ll reach for Go over those languages every time.