3 ms·
> the type system of Go is so complex; Go's type system is not complex at all. What is complex about it? There is a limited set of types, and they can have met
by leokun 13y ago
> the type system of Go is so complex;
Go's type system is not complex at all. What is complex about it? There is a limited set of types, and they can have methods. You can define your own types. What's so complex about that?
> programmers need to know all the details about the implementation of standard types, before they can use them correctly.
You should not have problem with knowing the details of the language or the third party libraries you are using if you want to be a proficient engineer builds stable, secure and easily-maintainable systems.
- mercurial 13y ago> the third party libraries you are using That's true only to a point. I'm not sure how deep the dependency tree of the two main Java projects I work on at the moment is, but I can guarantee that I don't know "all the details" of, well, most of it, despite considering myself a "proficient engineer".
- coldtea 13y ago>You should not have problem with knowing the details of the language or the third party libraries you are using if you want to be a proficient engineer builds stable, secure and easily-maintainable systems. What if you instead want/have to be a pragmatic programmer, you doesn't "engineer stable, secure and easily-maintainable systems" with all the time of the world available to him, but has to build something working adequate enough, as quick as possible, warts and all? You know, like 90% of early startup code out there, including companies that sold for hundrends of millions.