4 ms·
What’s the correction? The two claims are not in conflict. Saying “we don’t expect to ever add X” is not equivalent to “we never wanted to add X.” It simply mea
by piekvorst 4mo ago
What’s the correction? The two claims are not in conflict. Saying “we don’t expect to ever add X” is not equivalent to “we never wanted to add X.” It simply means that they didn’t think it would happen, which can coexist with an underlying willingness to consider it if a suitable approach appeared.
- tines 4mo agoYou added the word "want", the OP said "need". "We don't ever expect to add X" implies "we don't think we need X."
- foldr 4mo agoClearly we don’t need this feature. Just because the Go team decides to implement a feature doesn’t imply that they must think that the language needs the feature. You’re searching for contradictions where none exist.
- tines 4mo agoAh, then they’re implementing needless features! What’s worse! lol
- foldr 4mo agoMost programming language features are not strictly needed. They’re just quality of life improvements that are on balance a good addition to the language.
- tines 4mo agoSure, but if you take that view, everything above assembly is a QOL improvement and we really don't need anything. That definition is pretty useless though.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- foldr 4mo agoHmm, I don't think so. Go needs a string type to be a usable high-level programming language, but it doesn't need, say, the 'any' alias for 'interface{}'. Some features are more central than others. Perhaps none are 100% essential or inessential, but some features are clearly closer to one end of the spectrum than the other.