5 ms·
I like that they are exploring ways which are not comparable to the way it's done in other languages: > Don't confuse the term generic as used in this design w
by jhoechtl 6y ago
I like that they are exploring ways which are not comparable to the way it's done in other languages:
> Don't confuse the term generic as used in this design with the same term in other languages like C++, C#, Java, or Rust; they have similarities but are not the same.
Many critics complained in the past that Go ignores language resaerch results of decades. Thats true for a certain extend but in the same time they are exploring new ways to approach language design problems.
- yxhuvud 6y agoSure, that part is good and in some cases their approach has improved the state of the art (adding an automatic formatter to the language is perhaps the most obvious?), but at the same time I'm happy to use another language and not be a labrat, because not all the choices have been great.
- clktmr 6y agoGo is one of the most stable languages maintaining backwards compatibility since it's creation. Calling it's users labrats because you disagree with some decisions is totally misleading.
- solidasparagus 6y agoI think it’s fair to call the users labrats - it’s not really impugning on Go’s good history of backwards compatibility. Golang has done some real experimenting with what a programming language should be, and while some of the ideas have turned out great (a language designed for large teams of junior software engineers), others have been so-so (IMO error handling) while others have been massive mistakes (dependency management).
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoOK, that may have been true a decade ago. But at this point you're not being a labrat. You're not being experimented on. Go has made design choices, you know what they are, and you know most of the upsides and downsides of those choices. You know what you're getting into. If it has value for you, use it. If not, use something else.