3 ms·

But you said: > Which is good if you are inexperienced, but not so great once you grow and try to become more productive. A more expressive language is a must

But you said: > Which is good if you are inexperienced, but not so great once you grow and try to become more productive. A more expressive language is a must then or you'll be stuck. which implies that people who use Go have not grown and become as productive as people that use more expressive languages (because such languages are a "must" to grow in this way). At the very least, you are obviously disparaging Go programmers' productivity.

valenterry 4y ago
> which implies that people who use Go have not grown and become as productive That's not what it says, or at least not what I meant. People are different and can accept a different amounts of repetitive work. Heck, there are even people who really like it and want to think as little as possible. So all I'm saying is that there exist people in Go that grow and then want to improve their productivity but are now restricted by the language. And I think I have a point in the sense that Go is already adapting to those people by e.g. adding generics. So the number of those people can't be that small, otherwise I don't think they would follow their requests. > because such languages are a "must" to grow in this way And yeah, there are of course different ways to become more productive, e.g. through other kind of tooling, better organization etc. But the language is definitely one of our most important tools so if the language limits you then switching it is the only way to improve in this regards. In fact, English is not my native language and I often feel limited in both my mother tongue and English. Sometimes I'd love to just mix the two but obviously I can't. It's the same thing, but natural languages are much closer to each in terms of expressivenes than programming languages are. > At the very least, you are obviously disparaging Go programmers' productivity. I'm saying that a developer who feels limited by golang can and will become more productive with a less restrictive language, all other things being equal(!).
- rob74 4y ago
  So there are two categories of Go programmers in your opinion: (1) the beginners, who will eventually feel its limitations and will advance to a better language; and (2), those who don't mind repetitive work and want to think as little as possible, those will happily use Go until retirement. Still not really flattering, is it?
  - valenterry 4y ago
    Common! My example of people who don't want to think at all was clearly not in the context of developers. I'm talking about factory workers or sometimes even office workers. For golang there's certainly devs how just don't mind a certain amount of repetitive work and are happy to use Go until retirement. And I don't think that's a problem at all. People are different and I think we should embrace that. If you think being called a "factory worker" is not flattering, then that's more your personal judgement than me being objectively disregarding factory workers. Again: Try to read my response in the right context. I'm explaining why some people dislike (or even hate) the language. It was a response. Please try to keep that in mind when you reply.

valenterry 4y ago

> which implies that people who use Go have not grown and become as productive That's not what it says, or at least not what I meant. People are different and can accept a different amounts of repetitive work. Heck, there are even people who really like it and want to think as little as possible. So all I'm saying is that there exist people in Go that grow and then want to improve their productivity but are now restricted by the language. And I think I have a point in the sense that Go is already adapting to those people by e.g. adding generics. So the number of those people can't be that small, otherwise I don't think they would follow their requests. > because such languages are a "must" to grow in this way And yeah, there are of course different ways to become more productive, e.g. through other kind of tooling, better organization etc. But the language is definitely one of our most important tools so if the language limits you then switching it is the only way to improve in this regards. In fact, English is not my native language and I often feel limited in both my mother tongue and English. Sometimes I'd love to just mix the two but obviously I can't. It's the same thing, but natural languages are much closer to each in terms of expressivenes than programming languages are. > At the very least, you are obviously disparaging Go programmers' productivity. I'm saying that a developer who feels limited by golang can and will become more productive with a less restrictive language, all other things being equal(!).

rob74 4y ago
So there are two categories of Go programmers in your opinion: (1) the beginners, who will eventually feel its limitations and will advance to a better language; and (2), those who don't mind repetitive work and want to think as little as possible, those will happily use Go until retirement. Still not really flattering, is it?
- valenterry 4y ago
  Common! My example of people who don't want to think at all was clearly not in the context of developers. I'm talking about factory workers or sometimes even office workers. For golang there's certainly devs how just don't mind a certain amount of repetitive work and are happy to use Go until retirement. And I don't think that's a problem at all. People are different and I think we should embrace that. If you think being called a "factory worker" is not flattering, then that's more your personal judgement than me being objectively disregarding factory workers. Again: Try to read my response in the right context. I'm explaining why some people dislike (or even hate) the language. It was a response. Please try to keep that in mind when you reply.