3 ms·

> 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 langua

> 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
    Alright, so you went from twisting my words to claiming I can't have an opinion unless I provide specifics. This thread already started with specifics: functional operators like map/filter/reduce/etc. What I'm addressing are personal attacks by Golang luddites.

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
  Alright, so you went from twisting my words to claiming I can't have an opinion unless I provide specifics. This thread already started with specifics: functional operators like map/filter/reduce/etc. What I'm addressing are personal attacks by Golang luddites.