3 ms·

I think that's an unfortunate way to see it. Ignoring the possible resilience to using more recognised naming conventions and having gone around the houses in l

by weego 7y ago

I think that's an unfortunate way to see it. Ignoring the possible resilience to using more recognised naming conventions and having gone around the houses in languages for good and bad I'd go more along the lines of "software engineering is hard, the tools to do it well don't need to be"

apta 7y ago
Reality is complex, and having weak tools and languages just pushes complexity further down the line. It's quite evident of the extremely verbose, messy code bases that come out of using golang in even slightly complex domains. The vast majority of the claims behind golang (e.g. "large scale development", etc.) are not only baseless, but practical review of golang code bases shows that it's actually a step backward, and those claims do not manifest.