3 ms·
Pike's comment gets a lot of play because it happens to have great explanatory power for observed language design choices. It not "hardly the language philosop
by elgenie 2y ago
Pike's comment gets a lot of play because it happens to have great explanatory power for observed language design choices.
It not "hardly the language philosophy", it's the language philosophy stripped of the ego-fluffing layer of marketing to language end-users.
- Zababa 2y agoNo it's not. Please read some more recent writing by Rob Pike, like here: https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2024/01/what-we-got-right-what-we-got-wrong.html https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2024/01/what-we-got-right.... The money quotes: > In short, Go is not just a programming language. Of course it is a programming language, that's its definition, but its purpose was to help provide a better way to develop high-quality software, at least compared to our environment 14 plus years ago. > And that's still what it's about today. Go is a project to make building production software easier and more productive. I think there is an idea that Go is "software engineering for the masses", and that's why the word "easier" is used, and not "simpler". "easier" is fine when you're starting out and you don't know what you don't know. As times goes on, you start understanding more because you have more experience, and so you may yearn for something simpler, with less abstractions, more control. Go isn't the best language for this, but it's also far from the worst.