3 ms·
> I don't like the kinds of discussions it attracts...vague hand-wavy arguments about "expressiveness" and "purity". Pretty much every argument about how to wr
by whateveracct 5y ago
> I don't like the kinds of discussions it attracts...vague hand-wavy arguments about "expressiveness" and "purity".
Pretty much every argument about how to write Go programs is hand-wavy.
I'd actually argue (from years of experience at least) that FP discussions of code are pretty much the only ones of actual substance instead of mostly aesthetics and opinion and heuristic.
The best part of writing Haskell professionally is I no longer have to deal with hand-wavy programming folk-isms. We can do better, and it's not that hard.
- cle 5y agoAny stylistic discussions are like that, I agree. The opinions that Go makes are themselves hand-wavy, like any stylistic opinion. What's important to me is that the decision is already made, and when me and my team are writing code, we don't have to worry about making those decisions over and over again. They're already made for us. IME the costs/benefits of the different styles are not even worth the discussion, just pick something and move on. This is the aesthetic that I like about Go.
- jackcviers3 5y agoExactly. Is it RT? Is it well-typed? Is it as simple as it could be? Is there a small number of inhabitants? Ship it. Using some weird recursion scheme when fold right will do?