3 ms·
You gosters are planning on writing a lot of for loops, huh? Y'all can't be just plain ignorant about what you can do in a language that has the features to su
by methehack 13y ago
You gosters are planning on writing a lot of for loops, huh?
Y'all can't be just plain ignorant about what you can do in a language that has the features to support a proper collection library... So what's up with that? You like them for loops? Or does everything that's so awesome about go make it worth the apparently complete crap state of collections?
I suspect all this has to do with a choice of greater type safety over expressiveness, but I'm not sure. I know there's this big generics discussion in the go community. The thing about generics is you sprinkle butt-ugly and cross-eyed syntax on top of expressive and you get...expressive ugly cross eyed butt syntax collections.
Help me out here -- I read these rave go reviews and then I see this kind of thing and I think "well, it'd be better than Java -- maybe way better -- but it feels like Java redux all over again reheated."
- ewencp 13y agoI'm just learning Go, I'm certainly no evangelist. One huge difference for me, however, doesn't have to do with the language. It's deployment. It's really nice for deployment to be scp rather than a bunch of package installs, making sure your classpaths are right, etc. That said, one of the language features that drew me in is structural typing. I'd yet to see a well supported statically typed language that used structural typing, and it seemed like it would make software maintenance a lot easier. Of course, tools are often a better solution than language features, so maybe that's a bad reason to use a language.