4 ms·

People seriously act like Rob Pike's quote was about appealing to the lowest common denominator of programmers possible without realizing that the functional pr

People seriously act like Rob Pike's quote was about appealing to the lowest common denominator of programmers possible without realizing that the functional programming concepts they hold so dearly have been lacking for 50 years in the world of C/C++ where it's creators came from. They are so quick to frustration over the fact that the some languages don't act like they think it should and don't require the extraneous baggage of higher-order programming in order to quickly be productive in, while at the same time the entire operating system their computer runs on contains not a single line of map(), reduce() or filter().

tucnak 2y ago
For a community supposedly "committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience"[1] Rust activists perhaps unsurprisingly lack in tolerance, empathy, and awareness. The community has changed, too. I liked them more circa ~2015 from before the corpos caught on to "the most loved" language, and have since blown evangelists' expectations for future adoption way out of proportion. As long as the drawn-out vendetta lead by Rust activists contra Go is concerned, old proverb comes to mind: "Hating popular things does not make you interesting." [1]: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct
skinkestek 2y ago
> They are so quick to frustration over the fact that the some languages don't act like they think it should and don't require the extraneous baggage of higher-order programming in order to quickly be productive in Higher order functions often seems to be a way to complicate otherwise easy to read code. Kotlin manages to do it reasonably well, in Javascript I has beem behind some of my absolutely worst debugging experiences. The problem with Go, as far as I have seen is not about functional programming, but rather about things like making a point out of not supporting generics for years. For anyone who has experienced the Java 1.4 to Java 5 transition, and all the cruft it removed I cannot see how any of them can willingly accept a language that made a point out of being clumsy so one had to do it the old clumsy way agaim. Or how a language that us supposedly a good fit for web backends had (don't know if it have now, I've given up) no simple way in the standard library or any popular templating solution to say in a template that it should be included in a bigger template, thereby forcing the code to know about things that belong in the design world. I.e. to have - a common header with dynamic title - a dynamic part between - and common footer the correct way last I checked seemed to be to string them together like a php script from the late nineties.

tucnak 2y ago

For a community supposedly "committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience"[1] Rust activists perhaps unsurprisingly lack in tolerance, empathy, and awareness. The community has changed, too. I liked them more circa ~2015 from before the corpos caught on to "the most loved" language, and have since blown evangelists' expectations for future adoption way out of proportion. As long as the drawn-out vendetta lead by Rust activists contra Go is concerned, old proverb comes to mind: "Hating popular things does not make you interesting." [1]: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct

skinkestek 2y ago

> They are so quick to frustration over the fact that the some languages don't act like they think it should and don't require the extraneous baggage of higher-order programming in order to quickly be productive in Higher order functions often seems to be a way to complicate otherwise easy to read code. Kotlin manages to do it reasonably well, in Javascript I has beem behind some of my absolutely worst debugging experiences. The problem with Go, as far as I have seen is not about functional programming, but rather about things like making a point out of not supporting generics for years. For anyone who has experienced the Java 1.4 to Java 5 transition, and all the cruft it removed I cannot see how any of them can willingly accept a language that made a point out of being clumsy so one had to do it the old clumsy way agaim. Or how a language that us supposedly a good fit for web backends had (don't know if it have now, I've given up) no simple way in the standard library or any popular templating solution to say in a template that it should be included in a bigger template, thereby forcing the code to know about things that belong in the design world. I.e. to have - a common header with dynamic title - a dynamic part between - and common footer the correct way last I checked seemed to be to string them together like a php script from the late nineties.