3 ms·
> Honestly, one of the biggest things that drives me away from Go isn't the lack of features, it's this condescending attitude that comes from so many people wh
by throwaway894345 5y ago
> Honestly, one of the biggest things that drives me away from Go isn't the lack of features, it's this condescending attitude that comes from so many people who espouse Go.
I could say the same about many of Go's critics, but I don't because that wouldn't be constructive. Rather than taking undue offense at my comment, why not articulate a counterexample to prove that there are valid reasons why a person (rather than a use case) might require generics?
> If you wanted to be persuasive or helpful, you could try explaining what the other approaches to work around lacking generics might be, rather than just insulting people for being unable to figure out on their own how to avoid copy/paste spamming their codebase.
Because these are already well-understood and have been debated to death. Instead of .map().filter().flat_map().reduce() you use a simple for loop. Instead of `LinkedList<ItemType>` you use `type List struct { Item ItemType; Next List }`. The thing that we generally aren't* agreed on is whether those extra characters are actually the end of the world versus the benefits associated with simpler, more concrete, more standard code.
Anyway, I wasn't "insulting" anyone, I was describing Go critics' objections in roughly their own terms (i.e., in so many conversations I've had with Go critics esp over generics, the conversation eventually terminates at some variation of "Go forces me to think about programming differently than I'm used to").
- mcronce 5y ago> simpler, more concrete, more standard code. All three of these things are subjective. > in so many conversations I've had with Go critics esp over generics, the conversation eventually terminates at some variation of "Go forces me to think about programming differently than I'm used to" At some sufficiently large number of people, you need to acknowledge that how they think isn't wrong, the language is.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> All three of these things are subjective. Not really. They aren’t formally defined, but there’s pretty wide consensus even among Go detractors about these qualities. > At some sufficiently large number of people, you need to acknowledge that how they think isn't wrong, the language is. Not when there are plenty of people willing to think differently and reap the benefits.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mcronce 5y ago> there’s pretty wide consensus even among Go detractors about these qualities [citation needed] > there are plenty of people willing to think differently and reap the benefits "Reap the benefits" is, again, subjective. It's something you like, not something objectively beneficial or worth the trade-offs in all, most, or even necessarily many projects. This is precisely the unduly arrogant attitude amongst Gophers that others have already mentioned several times in this thread.
- throwaway894345 5y agoYou’re welcome to disbelieve me on the consensus. I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. > "Reap the benefits" is, again, subjective. It's something you like, not something objectively beneficial or worth the trade-offs in all, most, or even necessarily many projects. Of course, productivity isn’t for everyone. Sometimes for personal projects I’ll opt for things that exercise my creativity and cleverness over the purely productive or pragmatic. > This is precisely the unduly arrogant attitude amongst Gophers that others have already mentioned several times in this thread. Hah! This made me laugh. Yes, I disagree with you therefore I must be arrogant. (:
- mcronce 5y agolol...you even take criticism arrogantly. Impressive. It wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of fact, but thanks for making my point even more clearly for me - not only in your response to that, but in your assertion that your opinion based on your experience is fact. Appreciated. Restated: You aren't arrogant because you disagree with me. You're arrogant because the things you say and the way you say them are arrogant.
- throwaway894345 5y agoLook, I’m not interested in a slapfight. Enjoy your evening.
- philosopher1234 5y ago>At some sufficiently large number of people, you need to acknowledge that how they think isn't wrong, the language is. This justifies anything popular, including things that are now universally seen as bad, but once were popular.
- mcronce 5y agoIn the context of a discussion about programming languages, no, it really doesn't. Not all slopes are slippery.
- philosopher1234 5y agoIt seems like it does to me. Why doesn't it?
- mcronce 5y agoBecause not all statements apply to all situations.
- philosopher1234 5y agoThis is really vague and unhelpful. I’m going to interpret this to mean you’re not interested in actually explaining the problem, sorry if I’m mistaken.
- throwaway894345 5y agoFor what it’s worth, this is the read I’ve gotten from this thread as well. I’m not sure how else to interpret the parent’s remarks—his responses seem evasive rather than clarifying.
- philosopher1234 5y agoYea I noticed that in your interactions with them too. Also while I’m here I want to compliment you on your articulations of the strengths of go throughout this comments section! They’ve been very well put/compelling and helped me understand better how to express the things I like about go in the face of its detractors, which is a constant struggle for me.