3 ms·
I like how easy Go is to learn and how simple it is (along with the library availability) but can't help but feel that Rust feels more "put together" especially
by jbirer 5y ago
I like how easy Go is to learn and how simple it is (along with the library availability) but can't help but feel that Rust feels more "put together" especially in the type system and Generics areas. I feel like I am using a real language instead of a toy.
- oconnor663 5y agoI do think there's a degree of "as simple as possible, but no simpler". But also to be fair, Rust's target use cases lean harder towards max performance and max correctness, at the expense of learning curve and (sometimes) dev time.
- andrewflnr 5y agoDidn't one of Go's founders specifically say they didn't want to take advantage of existing type theory, in the name of "simplicity"? Meanwhile Rust is building off the ML/OCaml tradition. No wonder the language building on a 40 year body of work feels more consistent.
- srer 5y agoIt's not from a founder, but I like this paragraph from the preface of The Go Programming Language: Go has enough of a type system to avoid most of the careless mistakes that plague programmers in dynamic languages, but it has a simpler type system than comparable typed languages. This approach can sometimes lead to isolated pockets of "untyped" programming within a broader framework of types, and Go programmers do not go to the lengths that C++ or Haskell programmers do to express safety properties as type-based proofs. But in practice Go gives programmers much of the safety and run-time performance benefits of a relatively strong type system without the burden of a complex one. I happen to like this idea of gaining safety through the type system. Sometime's when Go's frustrating me I have to remember - it's that I'm be expecting and achieve something it just isn't intended for.