3 ms·
I think that is exactly the point. The argument is that if a language is developed/mainly contributed by a single company there is an inherent risk of that lan
by bpfrh 7y ago
I think that is exactly the point.
The argument is that if a language is developed/mainly contributed by a single company there is an inherent risk of that language being suddenly discountinued or lacking features that are needed by other people/companies.
At least that's how I understand the critics against microsoft in this case.
- meddlepal 7y ago> lacking features that are needed by other people/companies. Funny how nobody seems to give pile on Google for how it handles Go here...
- FpUser 7y agoI am an older fart and my preference for my own products is C/C++/Delphi/FreePascal for servers/desktop and JavaScript for web front. I program in many other languages as well but mostly because clients require them. In the latter case it is a consulting job and the last thing I care about is how their favorite languages are managed. It is their choice and I am here to take their money, not to judge their preferences. Advising client to use particular language instead of their favorites is straight road to disappointment.
- cyphar 7y agoI don't know where you got that impression -- every new Go proposal document posted to HN garners a significant amount of Google criticism. The most recent example I can think of is the fairly widely-argued criticism of the "go mod" proxy. Not to mention all of the criticism over Google's consistent mishandling of community concerns.