3 ms·
Where I'd disagree is that they are a tool, not a critical tool, and they aren't missing from Go, they are simply not the preferred choice. You can cover 75% of
by jerf 3y ago
Where I'd disagree is that they are a tool, not a critical tool, and they aren't missing from Go, they are simply not the preferred choice. You can cover 75% of the use cases with this approach. It is not 100% of the use cases. But there isn't a language where you can cover 100% of the use cases with 100% effectiveness, which is why we don't have and never will have The One True Language.
Moreover, Go seems to attract this sort of criticism as if Go is Uniquely Broken and it's nirvana in all the other languages... but I've used enough of them to know better. Sum types are great, until you hit the branch of the expression problem where you really need the other side, and if you're in a language that favors them, you're going to get the same 75% experience, just mirror imaged.
- nicoburns 3y ago> Sum types are great, until you hit the branch of the expression problem where you really need the other side, and if you're in a language that favors them, you're going to get the same 75% experience, just mirror imaged. Which other side? Product types (aka structs)? I don't think there are any languages with Sum types that don't also include Product types.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]