4 ms·

'clinging to dynamically typed languages' and 'too scary' implies that the only people using such languages are incompetent beginners. That is posturing more th

'clinging to dynamically typed languages' and 'too scary' implies that the only people using such languages are incompetent beginners. That is posturing more than it is an honest description of reality. Same applies to your description of Go as nothing more than a bridge to Scala. Are you so sure that everyone using languages other than Scala and Haskell is that much dumber than you are? It took a while for C++ and then for Java to become languages of corporate decree. If Go will ever become one of those languages, it will take around the same amount of time.

papsosouid 14y ago
>'clinging to dynamically typed languages' and 'too scary' implies that the only people using such languages are incompetent beginners No it doesn't, it implies they are accustomed to dynamically typed languages, and unfamiliar with modern statically typed languages. >Same applies to your description of Go as nothing more than a bridge to Scala. That's interesting given that I said no such thing. >Are you so sure that everyone using languages other than Scala and Haskell is that much dumber than you are? Who are you replying to? I said nothing of the sort. >If Go will ever become one of those languages, it will take around the same amount of time. What does that have to do with anything? Nobody is discussing whether or not go will become the corporate standard language.
4ad 14y ago
As someone who only used C for systems work for 15 years, and for the last two years switched exclusively to Go (exept in the kernel) I disagree. Go offers everything I want as a C programmer.