4 ms·

"Good" is meaningless – there is no absolute measure of the relative value of one programming language over another. C is not "better" than Python, or vice vers

by hazz99 6y ago

"Good" is meaningless – there is no absolute measure of the relative value of one programming language over another. C is not "better" than Python, or vice versa, just different tradeoffs for different problems and programming styles. The same is for Go.

ironmagma 6y ago
Kind of, but C and Python have undergone many iterations to try to become as good as they can be, while Go has lagged behind and almost prides itself on how uncomplex it is which is unfortunate only because people crave for it to be more complex. With languages like C and Python, the complexity and capability is there; it’s on you to decide when to use it. With Golang, you are just SOL.
- Philip-J-Fry 6y ago
  The thing is, do you want so many iterations to get something close to being good. Or do you want people to work with the community and decide together what a feature should look like and then get it in a good shape at day 1. Like, ask any python dev what dependency management is like. That's what iteration gets you. Take your time and you get in a much better shape.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    Thing is, I’m not convinced Go is actually “taking their time,” it’s just intentionally crap and there won’t be any significant improvements. Generics have been “coming” since the language became popular ~10 years ago.
vips7L 6y ago
I think there is some measure of value to not having to use a whole different language to generate go because it's incapable of making maintainable code without it. This is stockholm syndrome.
- hazz99 6y ago
  Part of Go’s tradeoff is managing that extra effort (or delay in waiting for the features to hit the main branch) in return for an extremely stable, simple language. You might find that to be a terrible idea, but others ostensibly think differently (Go is quite popular) Personally, I prefer more advanced type systems. But I understand Go can be a good choice in other situations.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > Go is quite popular Well sure, but inheritance and enterprise-style Java were all the rage in the 90s, but they largely haven't stood the test of time. I rather suspect Go will be similar. It has some good ideas, and it's compiler toolchain is top-quality. But I'd be willing to bet that the languages we're using in 20 years time look a lot more like Rust/Swift/Kotlin and TypeScript/Julia than Go.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Go will eventually grew up to be like Java and Cä# in 2020. Java was released in 1996, and only got enterprise-style C++ adoption around 2000. Until then, the inheritance and enterprise-style programming was done in a mix of Smalltalk, Eiffel, C++ and C based OOP. Julia is basically Dylan/Common Lisp at its kernel, Java and C# are getting all the ML like goodies to stay relevant, see C# vs F#.

by hazz99 6y ago

ironmagma 6y ago

Kind of, but C and Python have undergone many iterations to try to become as good as they can be, while Go has lagged behind and almost prides itself on how uncomplex it is which is unfortunate only because people crave for it to be more complex. With languages like C and Python, the complexity and capability is there; it’s on you to decide when to use it. With Golang, you are just SOL.

Philip-J-Fry 6y ago
The thing is, do you want so many iterations to get something close to being good. Or do you want people to work with the community and decide together what a feature should look like and then get it in a good shape at day 1. Like, ask any python dev what dependency management is like. That's what iteration gets you. Take your time and you get in a much better shape.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  Thing is, I’m not convinced Go is actually “taking their time,” it’s just intentionally crap and there won’t be any significant improvements. Generics have been “coming” since the language became popular ~10 years ago.

vips7L 6y ago

I think there is some measure of value to not having to use a whole different language to generate go because it's incapable of making maintainable code without it. This is stockholm syndrome.

hazz99 6y ago
Part of Go’s tradeoff is managing that extra effort (or delay in waiting for the features to hit the main branch) in return for an extremely stable, simple language. You might find that to be a terrible idea, but others ostensibly think differently (Go is quite popular) Personally, I prefer more advanced type systems. But I understand Go can be a good choice in other situations.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > Go is quite popular Well sure, but inheritance and enterprise-style Java were all the rage in the 90s, but they largely haven't stood the test of time. I rather suspect Go will be similar. It has some good ideas, and it's compiler toolchain is top-quality. But I'd be willing to bet that the languages we're using in 20 years time look a lot more like Rust/Swift/Kotlin and TypeScript/Julia than Go.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Go will eventually grew up to be like Java and Cä# in 2020. Java was released in 1996, and only got enterprise-style C++ adoption around 2000. Until then, the inheritance and enterprise-style programming was done in a mix of Smalltalk, Eiffel, C++ and C based OOP. Julia is basically Dylan/Common Lisp at its kernel, Java and C# are getting all the ML like goodies to stay relevant, see C# vs F#.