4 ms·
Maybe the author isn't a fan of explicit pointers? Because yeah, though it's obviously c-like (as is Java), I can't think of anything else one might consider ar
by andrewstuart2 6y ago
Maybe the author isn't a fan of explicit pointers? Because yeah, though it's obviously c-like (as is Java), I can't think of anything else one might consider archaic that isn't also in the java language or virtual machine.
- oblio 6y agoWhy does Go need explicit pointers?
- jrsj 6y agoIt’s less about need and more that it’s a feature to help you more easily understand your memory allocations and when you are getting a reference to something vs a copy
- bosswipe 6y agoThere are sooo many nice language features that have proven themselves over the last 3-4 decades and have become popular but are missing from Go that I think archaic is appropriate.
- andrewstuart2 6y agoThere's archaic and there's minimalist, and they're definitely not the same. Languages with buckets of features have steeper and longer learning curves, and if they're still actively developed, what you do learn may not last long. Go is what I'd call minimalist. COBOL or fortran are what I'd call archaic.