3 ms·
I would challenge you to rephrase this without the loaded language, not only because loaded language invites a flame war, but also to see if your argument is co
by throwaway894345 5y ago
I would challenge you to rephrase this without the loaded language, not only because loaded language invites a flame war, but also to see if your argument is compelling without assuming outright that the language is bad. I.e., can you make a persuasive argument that the language is bad rather than simply coming up with myriad different ways of implying that you don't like the language (or perhaps even the people who do like the language).
I think this is a good way to debate/discuss in general; nothing particular to Go or programming languages (although it may not yield as many upvotes).
- mcculley 5y agoI won't edit my post. Maybe I did use bad wording. I will contemplate that. I don't think Go is "bad". The important point to me is the expectation that Go will adapt to its user community. For example, I am not at all surprised that Go has bad abstractions for files under Windows. I would not expect Pike or Thompson to care about Windows. I would not try to make Go work as a cross platform language.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI'm not asking you to edit your post per se, I was giving feedback that your post is (1) flame-y and (2) not very compelling because it leans more on loaded language than it does on reasoned argument (and there are plenty of reasoned arguments to be made against Go, including, for example, the Windows file abstraction argument in your more recent post).