4 ms·

Wasn't Go supposed to be "simple"? I remember how Go advocates used to boast about not having generics and now it almost seems like Go is trying to become some

Wasn't Go supposed to be "simple"? I remember how Go advocates used to boast about not having generics and now it almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein. I'm not even trying to badmouth Golang - just legitimately confused.

kermatt 2mo ago
A problem was so many others were screaming about the lack of generics, as though there were not other language options that provided them.
pansa2 2mo ago
> almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein The original Go team was trying to avoid this: "Java, JavaScript (ECMAScript), Typescript, C#, C++, Hack (PHP), and more [...] actively borrow features from one another. They are converging into a single huge language." [0] That team has since moved on, and now Go has begun to join that convergence. The problem is that most programmers seem to want to write Java, more-or-less. New, simpler languages come along, but once they get popular, the pressure is on to turn them into Java-likes. It happened to Python and now it’s happening to Go. It takes a strong will for language maintainers to say “no”, and their language will suffer in popularity as a result - see, for example, Ruby. [0] https://go.dev/talks/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slide#5 https://go.dev/talks/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slide#5
- za3faran 2mo ago
  I would argue that languages like Java (C#, Kotlin, etc.) strike a very good compromise between modeling ability and comprehension, which is why they are popular and people gravitate toward them. You can have more complex languages like Scala that provide stronger modeling ability, but at the cost of complexity. Golang started off as extremely naive/simplistic, and is now converging in some ways. But it still has a ways to go: no generics on interfaces, no unions/ADTs, no pattern matching, no proper enums, error handling leaves much to be desired, and much more.
- JyB 1mo ago
  One can hope that the Go maintainers won't keep caving as they did for generics.
bikelang 2mo ago
Go genetics are still incredibly simple compared to languages with a rich type system.
JodieBenitez 2mo ago
I'm pretty sure there is a silent majority of Go users who don't want/need/know about generics.
- LandR 2mo ago
  And they can simply not use them ?
  - JodieBenitez 2mo ago
    Indeed ! So I don't see what the problem is here...

kermatt 2mo ago

A problem was so many others were screaming about the lack of generics, as though there were not other language options that provided them.

pansa2 2mo ago

> almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein The original Go team was trying to avoid this: "Java, JavaScript (ECMAScript), Typescript, C#, C++, Hack (PHP), and more [...] actively borrow features from one another. They are converging into a single huge language." [0] That team has since moved on, and now Go has begun to join that convergence. The problem is that most programmers seem to want to write Java, more-or-less. New, simpler languages come along, but once they get popular, the pressure is on to turn them into Java-likes. It happened to Python and now it’s happening to Go. It takes a strong will for language maintainers to say “no”, and their language will suffer in popularity as a result - see, for example, Ruby. [0] https://go.dev/talks/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slide#5 https://go.dev/talks/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slide#5

za3faran 2mo ago
I would argue that languages like Java (C#, Kotlin, etc.) strike a very good compromise between modeling ability and comprehension, which is why they are popular and people gravitate toward them. You can have more complex languages like Scala that provide stronger modeling ability, but at the cost of complexity. Golang started off as extremely naive/simplistic, and is now converging in some ways. But it still has a ways to go: no generics on interfaces, no unions/ADTs, no pattern matching, no proper enums, error handling leaves much to be desired, and much more.
JyB 1mo ago
One can hope that the Go maintainers won't keep caving as they did for generics.

bikelang 2mo ago

Go genetics are still incredibly simple compared to languages with a rich type system.

JodieBenitez 2mo ago

I'm pretty sure there is a silent majority of Go users who don't want/need/know about generics.

LandR 2mo ago
And they can simply not use them ?
- JodieBenitez 2mo ago
  Indeed ! So I don't see what the problem is here...