4 ms·

No it's simpler than that, they hate Go cause it's a half-assed language. The creators didn't respect developers enough to make it consistent and complete cause

by laerus 4y ago

No it's simpler than that, they hate Go cause it's a half-assed language. The creators didn't respect developers enough to make it consistent and complete cause "devs are not smart enough". The argument about "getting things done" is like saying the language is Turing complete.

Matl 4y ago
- ratww 4y ago
  That was a generic argument, but still a valid one. Go is a language that indeed misses several features, including safety features, that help people perform their job better, and their excuses for that aren't exactly well thought. It is a systemic issue with the language, and criticising it ca feel like a cheap shot, but that's they way it is. It's nice that they're reverting their position on that (re: generics), but there's still a long way to go. Also: just because someone isn't forced to use it, doesn't mean it's immune to criticism, no matter how vague it is. And also, some people are forced to use it at their day job. Again, just because they can quit their job, doesn't mean the language is immune to criticism. I would suggest some introspection if criticism of something you like is causing you to dismiss their arguments and attack them, no matter how bad they are. There was no attack to you. I don't understand why this always happens in Go discussions. It's a language with a lot of potential, but people still stoop down to attacking others in order to defend it should be frozen in time.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    > Go is a language that indeed misses several features... that help people perform their job better... It is a systemic issue with the language The only language in which "misses several features" is not "systemic" is C++, and having every feature seems also to not really help anyone do their job better. I'm sure your language of choice is perfect, though.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Missing features is not the problem. A language is just as much what it has as much as what it doesn’t have. But the actual feature-set and lack-of-features Go has for it is ripe for plenty of valid criticism as is.
      - morelisp 4y ago
        > the actual feature-set and lack-of-features Go has for it is ripe for plenty of valid criticism as is. But this, as a criticism of Go, is vapid. Level the actual criticism, not a vague gesture towards the possibility of it!
        ratww 4y ago
        The post that you're all talking about was replying to someone who attacked everyone criticising Go and called advanced PL features "type system fidget spinners". Addressing this kind of post doesn't require providing examples of how Go can grow. Also, I don't see why is the bar for criticising Golang's stagnation so much higher than the bar for people that want the language to never change.
    - ratww 4y ago
      Bullshit. “Misses several features” doesn’t mean “misses all features ever invented”. What an absurd interpretation. There are several languages in between Go and C++ that suffer from neither problem of having too much or too little.
      - morelisp 4y ago
        Your lack of specifics means you’re more interested in language bashing than discussing the relative value of features for different contexts. It’s been almost two decades of increasing memory latency relative to clock yet Java still lacks value types? Unusable!
        ratww 4y ago
  - Matl 4y ago
    > I don't understand why this always happens in Go discussions. It's a language with a lot of potential, but people still stoop down to attacking others in order to defend it should be frozen in time. It's not about wanting it to be frozen in time, it's more about wanting to have an interesting discussion. Repeating the same mantra in every Go thread is cheap, tiring even. Before it was generics, now is some vague 'long way to go' thing. Again, I'd be happy to see proposals, arguments etc, but 'Go sucks' isn't original or interesting anymore.
    - ratww 4y ago
      Who cares if it’s cheap and tiring, it’s the truth. When it was missing generica, saying so was also called a “cheap shot”. There’s plenty of proposals of thing that can be improved in this thread alone. Not every post has to contain them to be valid criticism. Sure it could have more but that doesn’t warrant personal attacks.
      - Matl 4y ago
        > Who cares if it’s cheap and tiring, it’s the truth. You do realize that is a matter of personal opinion, right? There's plenty of developers who like the language, (doesn't mean they're not seeking to always improve it), then there's those who hate it. But a comment from someone who loves Go but says nothing more as to why would be equally as useless as a generic comment from someone less found of it. They're free to continue posting such comments and I am free to explain why I find them useless. Simple as that.
        ratww 4y ago
        No. It's not a matter of personal opinion. Go indeed lacks "several features, including safety features, that help people perform their job better". Whether you're one of those people and whether the language really needs those features is a different issue. But when it comes to modern languages Go stands out for lacking several important features. And of course no language "needs" most features: as long as it's Turing Complete it can do anything. But Turing Completeness is the lowest bar possible, and in the real world you need more. What people are trying to have here is starting discussion of possible paths for the language to grow, no matter how crude that "start" is. It is "cheap" criticism? Sure, but it is valid criticism to the language. Sure, you can call those comments useless, but that's not what you're doing. What you're doing instead is taking language criticism personally, and then directing personal attacks at people making them. That's why your post was flagged, btw.

by laerus 4y ago

Matl 4y ago

ratww 4y ago
That was a generic argument, but still a valid one. Go is a language that indeed misses several features, including safety features, that help people perform their job better, and their excuses for that aren't exactly well thought. It is a systemic issue with the language, and criticising it ca feel like a cheap shot, but that's they way it is. It's nice that they're reverting their position on that (re: generics), but there's still a long way to go. Also: just because someone isn't forced to use it, doesn't mean it's immune to criticism, no matter how vague it is. And also, some people are forced to use it at their day job. Again, just because they can quit their job, doesn't mean the language is immune to criticism. I would suggest some introspection if criticism of something you like is causing you to dismiss their arguments and attack them, no matter how bad they are. There was no attack to you. I don't understand why this always happens in Go discussions. It's a language with a lot of potential, but people still stoop down to attacking others in order to defend it should be frozen in time.
- morelisp 4y ago
  > Go is a language that indeed misses several features... that help people perform their job better... It is a systemic issue with the language The only language in which "misses several features" is not "systemic" is C++, and having every feature seems also to not really help anyone do their job better. I'm sure your language of choice is perfect, though.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Missing features is not the problem. A language is just as much what it has as much as what it doesn’t have. But the actual feature-set and lack-of-features Go has for it is ripe for plenty of valid criticism as is.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      > the actual feature-set and lack-of-features Go has for it is ripe for plenty of valid criticism as is. But this, as a criticism of Go, is vapid. Level the actual criticism, not a vague gesture towards the possibility of it!
      - ratww 4y ago
        The post that you're all talking about was replying to someone who attacked everyone criticising Go and called advanced PL features "type system fidget spinners". Addressing this kind of post doesn't require providing examples of how Go can grow. Also, I don't see why is the bar for criticising Golang's stagnation so much higher than the bar for people that want the language to never change.
  - ratww 4y ago
    Bullshit. “Misses several features” doesn’t mean “misses all features ever invented”. What an absurd interpretation. There are several languages in between Go and C++ that suffer from neither problem of having too much or too little.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      Your lack of specifics means you’re more interested in language bashing than discussing the relative value of features for different contexts. It’s been almost two decades of increasing memory latency relative to clock yet Java still lacks value types? Unusable!
      - ratww 4y ago
- Matl 4y ago
  > I don't understand why this always happens in Go discussions. It's a language with a lot of potential, but people still stoop down to attacking others in order to defend it should be frozen in time. It's not about wanting it to be frozen in time, it's more about wanting to have an interesting discussion. Repeating the same mantra in every Go thread is cheap, tiring even. Before it was generics, now is some vague 'long way to go' thing. Again, I'd be happy to see proposals, arguments etc, but 'Go sucks' isn't original or interesting anymore.
  - ratww 4y ago
    Who cares if it’s cheap and tiring, it’s the truth. When it was missing generica, saying so was also called a “cheap shot”. There’s plenty of proposals of thing that can be improved in this thread alone. Not every post has to contain them to be valid criticism. Sure it could have more but that doesn’t warrant personal attacks.
    - Matl 4y ago
      > Who cares if it’s cheap and tiring, it’s the truth. You do realize that is a matter of personal opinion, right? There's plenty of developers who like the language, (doesn't mean they're not seeking to always improve it), then there's those who hate it. But a comment from someone who loves Go but says nothing more as to why would be equally as useless as a generic comment from someone less found of it. They're free to continue posting such comments and I am free to explain why I find them useless. Simple as that.
      - ratww 4y ago
        No. It's not a matter of personal opinion. Go indeed lacks "several features, including safety features, that help people perform their job better". Whether you're one of those people and whether the language really needs those features is a different issue. But when it comes to modern languages Go stands out for lacking several important features. And of course no language "needs" most features: as long as it's Turing Complete it can do anything. But Turing Completeness is the lowest bar possible, and in the real world you need more. What people are trying to have here is starting discussion of possible paths for the language to grow, no matter how crude that "start" is. It is "cheap" criticism? Sure, but it is valid criticism to the language. Sure, you can call those comments useless, but that's not what you're doing. What you're doing instead is taking language criticism personally, and then directing personal attacks at people making them. That's why your post was flagged, btw.