4 ms·

> The title is a bit confusing, actually means things they attribute Go's success to. As opposed to what? I can't see another possible interpretation of the ti

• djur 7y ago
  The way it's written means "things we believe are the result of Go's success", not "things we believe are the cause of Go's success". It's a word order issue. You attribute the smoke to the fire.
• dooglius 7y ago
  You would attribute programs and services written in Go, that would have been worse in another language, to Go's success.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• rdiddly 7y ago
  It's backwards. Attributing things to Go's success vs. attributing Go's success to things. Things someone attributes to Go's success would be things caused by Go's success. For example, the proliferation of stuff written in Go, the number of people making money as Go experts, the appearance of a Go entry in Wikipedia. Things to which someone attributes Go's success (i.e. so-and-so attributes Go's success to these things) would be things that caused Go's success - such as the things in the article. Headline could've been done correctly, but perhaps the problems started with digesting something by Rob Pike and turning it into a listicle. Which then has to have both its listicleness ("five things") and the presence of Rob Pike, advertised in the headline. But I might be being cynical.
• andybak 7y ago
  The two interpretations are "they worded the title badly" vs "they worded it this way intentionally because they are making a non-obvious point". I suspected the former but the latter was still a possibility. The likelihood of one over the other doesn't excuse the poor wording.