3 ms·

> That's not messy; that's idiomatic Go Haha. Everybody understands Go has a tool that deals with dependencies for you. And any other language can have it. A

by oakaz 13y ago

> That's not messy; that's idiomatic Go Haha. Everybody understands Go has a tool that deals with dependencies for you. And any other language can have it. And this is why I avoid monopolistic platforms even though they are fast. If the owner of your platform has no taste of aesthetics, you'll write fast and ugly looking code. which is not fun for me. As PG says in his book, a good solution should also look good and simple. Go is very imperative, ugly looking, and not simple. > http://godoc.org/-/index http://godoc.org/-/index This link is actually a self-answer by you.

drivebyacct2 13y ago
You clearly haven't a single clue what you're talking about. I've never, ever, ever heard someone describe Go this way: >Go is very imperative and ugly looking, and not simple. Further, this is just stupid: >And this is why I avoid monopolistic platforms even though they are fast. If you don't want to use `go`, so be it. The manual compiler and linker tools are available that you can cobble together with make or ant or whatever masochistic tool you prefer. >This link is actually a self-answer by you. What are you whining about? What do you want? That's just a laundry list of known/seen Go packages. As everyone else has already told you, there's no need for a package.json and this literally isn't a problem for anyone actually writing Go code.
- oakaz 13y ago
  Cool down. Apparently you guys are having difficulty of discussing about negative sides of your language and platform and this is fair for an immature community.
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    It would be less "difficult" for "me" if you had a proper frame of reference. I have actually used Go to write real code and be productive with it.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    From what I can tell, the only negative thing you've said about Go in this thread is that "it's ugly." What kind of discussion were you hoping to have?
burntsushi 13y ago
> Go is [...] ugly looking, and not simple. I disagree.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by oakaz 13y ago

drivebyacct2 13y ago

You clearly haven't a single clue what you're talking about. I've never, ever, ever heard someone describe Go this way: >Go is very imperative and ugly looking, and not simple. Further, this is just stupid: >And this is why I avoid monopolistic platforms even though they are fast. If you don't want to use `go`, so be it. The manual compiler and linker tools are available that you can cobble together with make or ant or whatever masochistic tool you prefer. >This link is actually a self-answer by you. What are you whining about? What do you want? That's just a laundry list of known/seen Go packages. As everyone else has already told you, there's no need for a package.json and this literally isn't a problem for anyone actually writing Go code.

oakaz 13y ago
Cool down. Apparently you guys are having difficulty of discussing about negative sides of your language and platform and this is fair for an immature community.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  It would be less "difficult" for "me" if you had a proper frame of reference. I have actually used Go to write real code and be productive with it.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  From what I can tell, the only negative thing you've said about Go in this thread is that "it's ugly." What kind of discussion were you hoping to have?

burntsushi 13y ago

> Go is [...] ugly looking, and not simple. I disagree.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]