4 ms·
IMO, this is because Go succeeded at its intended to goal: to create a language that people with very little Computer Science (but some C/C++ programming) exper
by OkayPhysicist 10mo ago
IMO, this is because Go succeeded at its intended to goal: to create a language that people with very little Computer Science (but some C/C++ programming) experience can be productive in. It eschews basically all abstractions that take more than 30s to explain to someone, which leaves a lot of really useful ones on the cutting room floor.
- tombert 10mo agoThat’s fair. I came into Go relatively late and from a more Functional Programming background, so the language ends up being kind of annoying to me but that is probably not the case for others.
- OkayPhysicist 10mo agoDon't get me wrong, I don't think it was a good goal. But that goal is the original sin of Go as a language, and most of the bad decisions that have been made in Go's design are in pursuit of it.
- benrazdev 10mo agoI agree with your point in general, but I would challenge the idea that tuples aren't something that is intuitive to explain (even in less than 30 seconds). Perhaps it's difficult to explain why tuples and not lists, but that's also relatively simple (homogeneous vs heterogeneous)