4 ms·

> 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 orde

by 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.
    - Matl 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". That is a subjective statement. There's no objective list of language features that make a programmer's job better. I'd like to see optional types in Go, but I can't say that it would objectively make the vast majority of programs I've written better, not to say about the wider community. I liked the error handling proposal from the Go team, but the wider community rejected it. Was it 'objectively bad'? I could go on and on. > 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, My problem is exactly that this is not the case. You don't start a discussion on 'possible paths' towards improvement without actually discussing any concrete path. Take a look at Swift for example, which even its original author stepped away from due to in part constant onslaught of features at the expense of wider design considerations, (as he perceived it). Go could certainly go faster, but I do think the 'how fast' is a delicate balance that doesn't have a simple answer. It merely looks like the typical HN mantra on programming languages. It's like posting about Rust in every thread on C++. I am someone who happens to like Rust but I don't think doing that would win us many fans. In many ways OP's criticism is even less concrete.
      - ratww 4y ago
        > There's no objective list of language features that make a programmer's job better. Quite the contrary, the list is often very objective. People know what makes them more productive. It’s just not a single list for everyone. This is why people engage in language criticism: to push for features THEY want. You say “don’t use the language”, we say “we use what we want, maybe you don’t use the features”. > You don't start a discussion on 'possible paths' towards improvement without actually discussing any concrete path. Read the whole thread. It started with concrete paths: functional operators like map/reduce/etc. The suggestion was promptly dismissed by the people against changes in Golang by calling it “type system fidget spinners”. That’s a lowbrow dismissal and an attempt to nuke civility. The poster you attacked was replying to that. So they must “propose changes” on every single post, even on meta posts replying to your crowd? The only people behaving badly here so far are the anti-change people. This is what I’m addressing. I’m not asking for features. I’m asking for your crowd to stop behaving like children.

by Matl 4y ago

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.
  - Matl 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". That is a subjective statement. There's no objective list of language features that make a programmer's job better. I'd like to see optional types in Go, but I can't say that it would objectively make the vast majority of programs I've written better, not to say about the wider community. I liked the error handling proposal from the Go team, but the wider community rejected it. Was it 'objectively bad'? I could go on and on. > 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, My problem is exactly that this is not the case. You don't start a discussion on 'possible paths' towards improvement without actually discussing any concrete path. Take a look at Swift for example, which even its original author stepped away from due to in part constant onslaught of features at the expense of wider design considerations, (as he perceived it). Go could certainly go faster, but I do think the 'how fast' is a delicate balance that doesn't have a simple answer. It merely looks like the typical HN mantra on programming languages. It's like posting about Rust in every thread on C++. I am someone who happens to like Rust but I don't think doing that would win us many fans. In many ways OP's criticism is even less concrete.
    - ratww 4y ago
      > There's no objective list of language features that make a programmer's job better. Quite the contrary, the list is often very objective. People know what makes them more productive. It’s just not a single list for everyone. This is why people engage in language criticism: to push for features THEY want. You say “don’t use the language”, we say “we use what we want, maybe you don’t use the features”. > You don't start a discussion on 'possible paths' towards improvement without actually discussing any concrete path. Read the whole thread. It started with concrete paths: functional operators like map/reduce/etc. The suggestion was promptly dismissed by the people against changes in Golang by calling it “type system fidget spinners”. That’s a lowbrow dismissal and an attempt to nuke civility. The poster you attacked was replying to that. So they must “propose changes” on every single post, even on meta posts replying to your crowd? The only people behaving badly here so far are the anti-change people. This is what I’m addressing. I’m not asking for features. I’m asking for your crowd to stop behaving like children.