3 ms·
> But must its users be this defensive? Go is to programing what Brutalism is to Architecture. It is striped bare of everything down to the most basic of forms
by zer00eyz 2y ago
> But must its users be this defensive?
Go is to programing what Brutalism is to Architecture. It is striped bare of everything down to the most basic of forms. It is structure is laid bare, put on display and free of decoration.
If you come in and try to write Golang like other languages your going to be unhappy, your going to tell us how go sucks because NPM/PIP/Gems is better (a common lament). It's not defensive rolling up the news paper and wacking new devs to Golang and telling them "don't do it like its java/c/ruby/js/python do it like this..."
Embrace the less is more of Go and it makes more sense and gets much more pleasant.
- tsss 2y agoI don't think that is a fair comparison for Brutalism. Programming's brutalism is more like Scheme: Simple, composable, sound and principled design. Golang is a "modern" McMansion: it tries to copy a modern style by unintelligently stripping away all ornamentation, but it doesn't understand the underlying theme of modernism and ultimately fails to achieve a coherent design.
- patrickjd 2y agoThis is the HN thread I didn't know I needed until I saw it. I often wonder how many of Brutalism's ardent fans grew up in an environment dense with Brutalist structures. I'm not here to bash the movement (the finest examples are wonderful) but just a reminder that the median Brutalist building is often a bleak, bleak affair. There's probably an analogy in there somewhere for programming too. Perhaps the best of Golang is wonderful but the median just doesn't compare. ETA: Either way, thanks for the taking the discussion down this direction. Certainly made me chuckle.
- binkethy 2y agoGarbage collection screams: "look elsewhere if true brutalism is what you seek; maybe C or Pascal deserve that mantle more than a high level language like Go."