4 ms·

He didn't express a lack of pain, just that he was never in a situation where he was stumped by not having them. Generics aren't exactly magic. They can improve

He didn't express a lack of pain, just that he was never in a situation where he was stumped by not having them. Generics aren't exactly magic. They can improve code, but you can live without them if you really have to. Although I think you are on to something per the original question about the appeal of Go. For all its faults, Go also gets a lot of things very right that aren't obvious until you have gained the necessary level of familiarity. Once you rise above 'blub', it is indeed hard to go back. While I spend most of my days in other languages full of all kinds of fanciful features, I did a short stint on a Go project and now especially hate not having blocking functions everywhere (async/await is one of those fanciful features I have to deal with) and sensible error handling.

valenterry 4y ago
> He didn't express a lack of pain, just that he was never in a situation where he was stumped by not having them. I mean, isn't that the same thing? You don't know you are "stumped" if you never experienced it. That's what I mean by "feeling the pain". > Generics aren't exactly magic. They can improve code, but you can live without them if you really have to. Of course - that's true for essentially any language feature. We can all use assembly if we have to, but I think that's missing the point of why OP asked. > Although I think you are on to something per the original question about the appeal of Go. For all its faults, Go also gets a lot of things very right that aren't obvious until you have gained the necessary level of familiarity. Sure, I mean: if you always used a language with an unergonomic and non-integreated builtsystem, you probably won't feel the pain or won't feel it as much as when coming from golang. That would be blub the other way around. Worse: the more languages (that are actually different) you have used, the more unhappy you are with every single existing language.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > I mean, isn't that the same thing? Not at all. The claim about not being stumped was made in response to criticism that Go is unusable without generics. Said criticism was probably made up, but I guess it was still interesting enough to garner the response that ultimately brought us here. > That would be blub the other way around. Seems like blub the same way around. Indeed, the blub paradox itself is paradoxical. > the more languages (that are actually different) you have used, the more unhappy you are with every single existing language. And the more you really appreciate just what Go has done by taking an engineering approach and not an academic approach.

valenterry 4y ago

> He didn't express a lack of pain, just that he was never in a situation where he was stumped by not having them. I mean, isn't that the same thing? You don't know you are "stumped" if you never experienced it. That's what I mean by "feeling the pain". > Generics aren't exactly magic. They can improve code, but you can live without them if you really have to. Of course - that's true for essentially any language feature. We can all use assembly if we have to, but I think that's missing the point of why OP asked. > Although I think you are on to something per the original question about the appeal of Go. For all its faults, Go also gets a lot of things very right that aren't obvious until you have gained the necessary level of familiarity. Sure, I mean: if you always used a language with an unergonomic and non-integreated builtsystem, you probably won't feel the pain or won't feel it as much as when coming from golang. That would be blub the other way around. Worse: the more languages (that are actually different) you have used, the more unhappy you are with every single existing language.

randomdata 4y ago
> I mean, isn't that the same thing? Not at all. The claim about not being stumped was made in response to criticism that Go is unusable without generics. Said criticism was probably made up, but I guess it was still interesting enough to garner the response that ultimately brought us here. > That would be blub the other way around. Seems like blub the same way around. Indeed, the blub paradox itself is paradoxical. > the more languages (that are actually different) you have used, the more unhappy you are with every single existing language. And the more you really appreciate just what Go has done by taking an engineering approach and not an academic approach.