4 ms·
Hey, there are valid reasons not to use Go, but don't you think you're laying it on a bit thick? A lot of those are pretty subjective, too. My anecdata tells m
by koko775 13y ago
Hey, there are valid reasons not to use Go, but don't you think you're laying it on a bit thick? A lot of those are pretty subjective, too.
My anecdata tells me that Go's types are sufficient (and sometimes even handy), error handling everywhere helps more than it hurts (and is easily ignored if you want to), and is very much not a functional language. And I would disagree with the notion that C is, on average, well-understood given how widely available it is (a nicer way of saying that C is an easy language for anyone to misunderstand). Go is comparatively simpler to 'get right' -- in my experience
Again, this is all very subjective. Still, I don't see how flaming Go alone helps highlight OCaml's advantages and contrast their tradeoffs.
- rwmj 13y agoYes probably I am. I think this stems from my feeling that Go is a lost opportunity. There's room for a sane C++ replacement. OCaml hasn't made it yet, although it fits in that space [arguably]. Go tries to do that but ignores great languages that have gone before it.
- freyrs3 13y agoI understand the confusion about the language though I don't think the goal was ever to replace C++. Go still has a managed runtime, so I can't imagine it would ever appeal to people who want to go purely native.
- IsTom 13y agoOCaml's type system is not particularly sophisticated for a functional language, but it's still way ahead of Go. I can't see how Go's type are comparably sufficient.