3 ms·

This shouldn't be flagged...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fxtentacle 4y ago
I flagged it because it appears to be written to mostly elicit outrage, as opposed to informing the reader. For example the headline "Mom smokes, so it's probably okay" and then 8 paragraphs of lead-up to the argument that the Go standard library has an inelegant IP type. Afterwards the author equates people using custom types to "build a whole new type system". "Evidently, the Go team didn't want to design a language." is also pretty insulting if you consider how much the Go team wrote and talked about why they designed things in this way. And to make a lot of weird arguments work, the author then refuses to treat any cgo feature as part of the Go language ecosystem. That's the point where I was convinced that the author wrote the summary before researching the arguments.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rmasters 4y ago
  Are those issues really so egregious? There is a tremendous amount of content geared towards "informing the reader" and I'd prefer to draw my own conclusions about the author's intent rather than having a censor (who is assuming bad-faith) try to protect me from a rather mild rant (in my opinion).
- tinco 4y ago
  The headline and the paragraphs lead up to an illustration how the IP type in Go is inelegant because of several shortcomings in Go. It's a perfectly acceptable instrument to the argument. It immediately follows up with interesting discussion about how it's acceptable for a team of experts to use Go. I think he's wrong, Go is perfectly powerful in the hands of novices. And I actually think a team of experts like Tailscale would probably be much better served by choosing Rust. But that's all besides the point. The article is excellent, fits our forum and is a great basis for discussion. You are not using the flagging feature as it's intended to be used.
otterley 4y ago
- scandinavian 4y ago
  Is this a bot? The last 6 posts of the account are copy/paste spam.
  - otterley 4y ago
    No, not a bot. Just using the same response to the same question posed by different people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

I flagged it because it appears to be written to mostly elicit outrage, as opposed to informing the reader. For example the headline "Mom smokes, so it's probably okay" and then 8 paragraphs of lead-up to the argument that the Go standard library has an inelegant IP type. Afterwards the author equates people using custom types to "build a whole new type system". "Evidently, the Go team didn't want to design a language." is also pretty insulting if you consider how much the Go team wrote and talked about why they designed things in this way. And to make a lot of weird arguments work, the author then refuses to treat any cgo feature as part of the Go language ecosystem. That's the point where I was convinced that the author wrote the summary before researching the arguments.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rmasters 4y ago
Are those issues really so egregious? There is a tremendous amount of content geared towards "informing the reader" and I'd prefer to draw my own conclusions about the author's intent rather than having a censor (who is assuming bad-faith) try to protect me from a rather mild rant (in my opinion).
tinco 4y ago
The headline and the paragraphs lead up to an illustration how the IP type in Go is inelegant because of several shortcomings in Go. It's a perfectly acceptable instrument to the argument. It immediately follows up with interesting discussion about how it's acceptable for a team of experts to use Go. I think he's wrong, Go is perfectly powerful in the hands of novices. And I actually think a team of experts like Tailscale would probably be much better served by choosing Rust. But that's all besides the point. The article is excellent, fits our forum and is a great basis for discussion. You are not using the flagging feature as it's intended to be used.

otterley 4y ago

scandinavian 4y ago
Is this a bot? The last 6 posts of the account are copy/paste spam.
- otterley 4y ago
  No, not a bot. Just using the same response to the same question posed by different people.