3 ms·
It would have been good if you had addressed the actual criticisms he made, instead of dismissing the entire post as illegitimate. For example, your point about
by jessedhillon 14y ago
It would have been good if you had addressed the actual criticisms he made, instead of dismissing the entire post as illegitimate. For example, your point about runtime managed types is technically correct, but not a response to his larger theme of perceived inconsistency and unnecessary deviations.
- enneff 14y agoI could, but I don't really have time to do this for every article along the lines of "I've been using Go for a couple of days and here's what I think..." This article written by Rob Pike covers the reasoning behind many design decisions: http://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article http://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article
- jessedhillon 14y agoWhen I say "it would have been good" I don't mean in general principle as a means to have orderly debate. I mean: the OP gives some very valid and sensible criticisms (I speak as someone who has used Go off/on for ~2 years), and given your background and area of expertise, I would love to know what the reasons are for some of the puzzling design decisions pointed out. You seem determined to be dismissive here, which is unfortunate because there are few others on HN who are qualified to address these criticisms.