4 ms·

I'm in the opposite camp from you — I like generics, lack of null, and syntax highlighting — but that's fine! I don't think this is something we have to 'agree'

by cytzol 7y ago

I'm in the opposite camp from you — I like generics, lack of null, and syntax highlighting — but that's fine! I don't think this is something we have to 'agree' or 'disagree' with. It simply means that you're within Go's target market. If you want to use a simple language, and the software you're writing works just fine without these features in your code, then of course it's OK to jettison them and stick with the simple language. I need those features because of the software I write, so I need to stick with a more feature-ful language. Acting like there needs to be some 'one true way' when we're writing completely different pieces of software is how pointless internet arguments get started.

meddlepal 7y ago
The problem is not all of us get to choose the language we work in and sometimes someone picks a language for all the wrong reasons and then you're stuck with it because a rewrite is costly and usually not an option. So these debates do have some merit.
- cytzol 7y ago
  You're right, and that is unfortunate. But "people sometimes make the wrong decisions" is a much tougher nut to crack! I agree that we should have these debates — but on a "is this language acceptable for my use case" level, not a "is this language acceptable for any use cases" level.
haolez 7y ago
That’s true, but there are a lot of beautiful and featureful programming languages out there, and possibly only Go in the “simplicity above features” camp. I disagree with the move towards Go 2 by introducing genetics and whatnot. If I really want those features, I know where to get them.
jahaja 7y ago
This. So much. I would really hope that folks could accept that different languages have different objectives, and that this is good. The problem I've seen is that there's always a feature creep by folks that like more expressiveness; "This is a solved problem and not an issue at all! You must make it a part of the language!". So there's some kind of inherent pursuit of conformity given enough adoption.

by cytzol 7y ago

meddlepal 7y ago

The problem is not all of us get to choose the language we work in and sometimes someone picks a language for all the wrong reasons and then you're stuck with it because a rewrite is costly and usually not an option. So these debates do have some merit.

cytzol 7y ago
You're right, and that is unfortunate. But "people sometimes make the wrong decisions" is a much tougher nut to crack! I agree that we should have these debates — but on a "is this language acceptable for my use case" level, not a "is this language acceptable for any use cases" level.

haolez 7y ago

That’s true, but there are a lot of beautiful and featureful programming languages out there, and possibly only Go in the “simplicity above features” camp. I disagree with the move towards Go 2 by introducing genetics and whatnot. If I really want those features, I know where to get them.

jahaja 7y ago

This. So much. I would really hope that folks could accept that different languages have different objectives, and that this is good. The problem I've seen is that there's always a feature creep by folks that like more expressiveness; "This is a solved problem and not an issue at all! You must make it a part of the language!". So there's some kind of inherent pursuit of conformity given enough adoption.