5 ms·

Are you responding to the parent's post and suggesting that this is something to do with Go's success, or are you simply complaining?

• DonaldPShimoda 4y ago
  Ah, you're absolutely right. I rewrote some parts of my comment a few times and accidentally removed the bit that actually connected it haha. My point was that Go seems to have managed to be successful (for some reasonable definitions of "successful") despite at least one large deficiency. In fact, it is the same deficiency for which Java's success can be said to be surprising, though Java had ~20 years fewer history to draw upon. (Java is relevant because it's what the parent comment was comparing Go to.) It is disappointing to me that Go had a really good position to provide a new language in a specific niche, but they squandered at least one significant aspect of the language design due to (in my opinion) a lack of knowledge in the relevant area. This despite being designed by "experts at the top of their field", as the parent comment noted.
  • wahern 4y ago
    > they squandered at least one significant aspect of the language design due to (in my opinion) a lack of knowledge in the relevant area. Why do you believe the reason was lack of knowledge?
  • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    One of HN's guidelines is "charitable assumption". It specifically is required toward other posters. But you might extend that charity to Go's creators. They actually were experts at the top of their field. Assuming a lack of knowledge is both uncharitable and, frankly, arrogant. It would be better to assume that they made choices other than the ones you would have made, and did so with eyes wide open and full knowledge.
  • dgb23 4y ago
    You can safely assume that there was no such thing as lack of knowledge about type systems and language design.