2 ms·

I don't really buy into this view of Go. Go doesn't keep things simple and uniform. It's more limited in many ways than other languages, but it's feature set is

• MobiusHorizons 3y ago
  > Go doesn’t keep things simple and uniform This is a bold statement, care to back that up with examples? In my experience go is the most uniform language I have used due in large part to having very good abstractions available in the standard library, as well as the way interfaces are used. > Limited and simple are not synonyms Agreed. Simple refers to how much context you me to keep track of as opposed to the capabilities of the system (which is how I interpret limited). What aspects of go you you find limited?
  • wtetzner 3y ago
    > This is a bold statement, care to back that up with examples? I would argue it's less bold than claiming Go does keep things simple and uniform. It's weird to require someone to prove that a language doesn't have nice properties. In any case, one glaring example of non-uniformity is how slices and maps are magically generic. I would also argue that Go's error handling solution of returning a pair is not very simple. Returning two things when only one of them should ever be populated is incidental complexity, and adds cognitive load. Something like a sum type is simpler, as you only get a value or the error.
    • MobiusHorizons 3y ago
      It's not about if it has or doesn't have nice properties. It's about going against conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is often wrong, so go right ahead, but you need at least some evidence in a public forum when you say things that are generally established not to be true.