3 ms·
While I share your perspective on go, I do prefer developing in a bottom-up way myself: I just do so with the intent of iterating my way to a higher level abstr
by chuckadams 2y ago
While I share your perspective on go, I do prefer developing in a bottom-up way myself: I just do so with the intent of iterating my way to a higher level abstraction. Sometimes I see the abstraction right away and start with it, but I don’t want a language that gets in my way in either direction.
- kubb 2y agoThe thing is, in Go you can develop bottom-up, but you can't always end up with a an appropriate abstraction, because of the lack of tools to achieve that.
- _1_1_1_1_1_1_ 2y ago[dead]
- nine_k 2y agoA Lisp (like Clojure), or Haskell are great for playing around with things and developing bottom-up. I did just that for a day job sometimes. Of course, I then had to translate that to Python or TS, but once an idea is understood and tried, it's not such a big deal.
- ReleaseCandidat 2y agoThat's interesting, for me Lisps, Python or TS (or Go) are great for playing around with things and developing bottom-up. And then I translate that to Haskell (or Rust or C++ or Go).