3 ms·
> There's no better or worse here, just two types of people. No, two types of solving a problem. I like writing both (Haskell and Go) - for _myself_ - but the
by ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
> There's no better or worse here, just two types of people.
No, two types of solving a problem. I like writing both (Haskell and Go) - for _myself_ - but the tooling and standard library and ... of Go is orders of magnitudes better.
- kubb 2y agoI would refrain from comparing Haskell - a research language intended for academia and created in universities, to Go - a pragmatic industry language intended for production and created in a megacorp. Why would Haskell's tooling be better? It's not reasonable to expect that.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y agoI'm actually surprised Go's tooling as as good as it is _although_ it is made by Google. But to be fair, GoogleTest is OK too.
- nine_k 2y agoGoogle has produced a number of quite good tools. See also Bazel, for instance. During my time there, I was genuinely impressed by the quality of many of the internal tools. E.g. it took GitHub code review tools a long time to get on par with Google's internal code review tools from 2015.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago> Google has produced a number of quite good tools. "Quite good" is exactly the wording that I would have used too. But Go's tooling is _really_ good; the language itself is, well, "quite good". And is still supported and actively developed!
- kaba0 2y agoWell, you are comparing the tooling of haskell and go. Of course in this comparison the difference will be stark, but there are plenty of languages that are sanely expressive, unlike go, and has decent tooling around it, like java, c#, perhaps scala if you want even more expressivity.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago> and has decent tooling around it, like java, c#, perhaps scala All of these are perfectly mediocre and usable languages (in which I would write in if somebody pays me), but surprisingly even for myself I ended up really liking Go.