3 ms·
Doesn't this just come down to "because we are better programmers?" Or maybe: worse programmers :P A truly excellent programmer wouldn't need language support
by stinos 13y ago
Doesn't this just come down to "because we are better programmers?"
Or maybe: worse programmers :P
A truly excellent programmer wouldn't need language support to making sure errors are handled for he or she knows no single piece of code is ever going to be reliable if error checking is omitted, no matter what language it is written in, and he/she automatically deals with it.
Then again, everybody makes mistakes and noot many are trylu excellent so a language guiding you into the right direction is certainly a Good thing. Easily proven if you look at the amount of SO questions where the answer basically is "well, if you didn't omit the error checking you wouldn't have to ask this question in the first place"
- taeric 13y agoI guess I'm just a little sceptical that that is the reason. Seems a little too handwavy. Especially when so many other languages/frameworks had decent tooling, too. Consider, Rails would setup tests for you, as well. I fully grant that testing most websites is a good deal more involved than testing most utilities. But, if anything, I would suspect that is the true gem in go. Seems it is mostly used for utilities with well defined inputs and outputs.
- steveklabnik 13y agoYour 'truly excellent programmer' is like the ancient man of myth; they simply don't exist. An excellent programmer understands that they are human, and uses tools to amplify thier abilities. Nothing about extra tooling makes you less of an excellent programmer, or extcellent programmers would only use machine language.