3 ms·
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
by 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 agoPart 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 agoGo 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#.