4 ms·

That's what's awesome about it! Everybody who uses it gets the same impressions of it (EDIT: and those impressions are 95% good). What other language has that g

by Arnor 13y ago

That's what's awesome about it! Everybody who uses it gets the same impressions of it (EDIT: and those impressions are 95% good). What other language has that going for it?

asdasf 13y ago
What? Everyone coming from python/ruby/javascript maybe, but there's also a heck of a lot of us who wanted to like go but find it too primitive and inexpressive. I tried go while I was still a confused haskell noob, and I still had to go back to haskell. I can't imagine how bad go must feel to an experienced haskell dev.
Peaker 13y ago
I think there's a survival-bias/selection-bias here. Those who tried Go and came from a background of more advanced languages just threw it away quickly and wrote nothing about Go.
- jzelinskie 13y ago
  I've seen a few Haskellers finding similarities and praising Go[1]. Go is just meant to be practical and familiar to most working engineers and all the articles are going to reflect that. Most of the people coming from "advanced languages" are looking for new paradigms to move forward. When it comes to Go, there really isn't much to talk about besides the maturation of the toolchain. [1] http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/my-beautiful-code/2009/11/22.the-go-language.html http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/my-beautiful-code/2...
  - Peaker 13y ago
    The plenty of Haskellers I know have all expressed disinterest in Go as a poorly designed language. The linked post seems to be a very superficial take of Go. I wonder if he'd keep his opinion of Go after learning about lack of generics, error product types, nulls, mutability of concurrent messages, and all the other show stopper design mistakes...
    - jzelinskie 13y ago
      As an aside, that article says that Haskell can't guarantee Monads to also be Functors. Is that a language problem or library problem?
      - tikhonj 13y ago
        That's purely a library oversight which has become mired in backwards compatibility (don't track any of that onto my carpet :P). It would be trivial to specify that all Monads are also Functors by changing the definition of the Monad class a little bit: class Functor m => Monad m where
      - Peaker 13y ago
        It's a library/compatibility problem, and it's (finally) being addressed now (will take years until the change takes place, need deprecation warnings for a loong time).
cgag 13y ago
I think Peaker is right, I think a lot of us who are coming from Clojure/Scala/Haskell/Ocaml/etc don't bother writing blog posts that we're unimpressed.

by Arnor 13y ago

That's what's awesome about it! Everybody who uses it gets the same impressions of it (EDIT: and those impressions are 95% good). What other language has that going for it?

asdasf 13y ago

What? Everyone coming from python/ruby/javascript maybe, but there's also a heck of a lot of us who wanted to like go but find it too primitive and inexpressive. I tried go while I was still a confused haskell noob, and I still had to go back to haskell. I can't imagine how bad go must feel to an experienced haskell dev.

Peaker 13y ago

I think there's a survival-bias/selection-bias here. Those who tried Go and came from a background of more advanced languages just threw it away quickly and wrote nothing about Go.

jzelinskie 13y ago
I've seen a few Haskellers finding similarities and praising Go[1]. Go is just meant to be practical and familiar to most working engineers and all the articles are going to reflect that. Most of the people coming from "advanced languages" are looking for new paradigms to move forward. When it comes to Go, there really isn't much to talk about besides the maturation of the toolchain. [1] http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/my-beautiful-code/2009/11/22.the-go-language.html http://www.starling-software.com/en/blog/my-beautiful-code/2...
- Peaker 13y ago
  The plenty of Haskellers I know have all expressed disinterest in Go as a poorly designed language. The linked post seems to be a very superficial take of Go. I wonder if he'd keep his opinion of Go after learning about lack of generics, error product types, nulls, mutability of concurrent messages, and all the other show stopper design mistakes...
  - jzelinskie 13y ago
    As an aside, that article says that Haskell can't guarantee Monads to also be Functors. Is that a language problem or library problem?
    - tikhonj 13y ago
      That's purely a library oversight which has become mired in backwards compatibility (don't track any of that onto my carpet :P). It would be trivial to specify that all Monads are also Functors by changing the definition of the Monad class a little bit: class Functor m => Monad m where
    - Peaker 13y ago
      It's a library/compatibility problem, and it's (finally) being addressed now (will take years until the change takes place, need deprecation warnings for a loong time).

cgag 13y ago

I think Peaker is right, I think a lot of us who are coming from Clojure/Scala/Haskell/Ocaml/etc don't bother writing blog posts that we're unimpressed.