3 ms·

> by factors more productive than the same work I've done in C# are you exaggerating here? C# is already the most productive language in my toolkit. It's easy

> by factors more productive than the same work I've done in C# are you exaggerating here? C# is already the most productive language in my toolkit. It's easy to write reams of code that just works in C#. I should have a look at Go then. (edit forgot a word)

finnh 13y ago
I measure my productivity in a language by how little code I can write to accomplish my goal. You seem to be saying the opposite? EDIT: I guess you are saying something slightly different: that you can produce reams of C# code that works out of the box without many iterations. "reams" to me implies boilerplate & excessive ceremony, but I shouldn't assume that about your work =)
- usea 13y ago
  Shouldn't productivity be measured in how much time it takes to solve problems? The amount of code produced at the end is only relevant if typing is a significant portion of your time spent. Typing is rarely my bottleneck.
  - markkanof 13y ago
    Agree that typing speed is not the bottleneck when writing code, but there is something to be said for writing fewer lines of code that are also easy to understand (ie. overly clever code that is concise is often a negative). That should make maintenance and debugging easier as there is less code in which to introduce bugs and less code to load into your brain when returning to it later.
- codygman 13y ago
  The reason you write less code in Go is because there is less complexity. Similar to F# vs C#: http://fpbridge.co.uk/why-fsharp.html http://fpbridge.co.uk/why-fsharp.html (checkout the call graph comparisons. I believe a Haskell call graph would be similar, but I could be very wrong.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    Kind of ironic that for making a point on C#, you're using F#, an FP language.
    - codygman 13y ago
      I don't see the irony. It's a contrast of a class based and object oriented language vs a functional language. The functional language leads to a much simpler call graph than the OOP language.
      - bad_user 13y ago
        The irony is that Go is not a functional programming language.
        codygman 13y ago
        You're right. One of the reason it has simpler call graphs and less complexity is because it is composition based and struct rather than class based.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  No I wouldn't be saying I produce reams of boilerplate like it's a good thing ;) I meant, and I'm sure you've experience this, that the language doesn't get in the way of realizing the program that's still in my head. Every interruption spent tracking down some language quirk is probably double the time or more to get back into the flow of it. It's really a shame Microsoft doesn't do more to make C# more portable.
voidlogic 13y ago
I agree from the original poster having done a lot of C/C++/Java/C# in the past.
coldtea 13y ago
Yes, he is exaggerating. Go is nowhere near as expressive or productive as C#.

finnh 13y ago

I measure my productivity in a language by how little code I can write to accomplish my goal. You seem to be saying the opposite? EDIT: I guess you are saying something slightly different: that you can produce reams of C# code that works out of the box without many iterations. "reams" to me implies boilerplate & excessive ceremony, but I shouldn't assume that about your work =)

usea 13y ago
Shouldn't productivity be measured in how much time it takes to solve problems? The amount of code produced at the end is only relevant if typing is a significant portion of your time spent. Typing is rarely my bottleneck.
- markkanof 13y ago
  Agree that typing speed is not the bottleneck when writing code, but there is something to be said for writing fewer lines of code that are also easy to understand (ie. overly clever code that is concise is often a negative). That should make maintenance and debugging easier as there is less code in which to introduce bugs and less code to load into your brain when returning to it later.
codygman 13y ago
The reason you write less code in Go is because there is less complexity. Similar to F# vs C#: http://fpbridge.co.uk/why-fsharp.html http://fpbridge.co.uk/why-fsharp.html (checkout the call graph comparisons. I believe a Haskell call graph would be similar, but I could be very wrong.
- bad_user 13y ago
  Kind of ironic that for making a point on C#, you're using F#, an FP language.
  - codygman 13y ago
    I don't see the irony. It's a contrast of a class based and object oriented language vs a functional language. The functional language leads to a much simpler call graph than the OOP language.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      The irony is that Go is not a functional programming language.
      - codygman 13y ago
        You're right. One of the reason it has simpler call graphs and less complexity is because it is composition based and struct rather than class based.
michaelwww 13y ago
No I wouldn't be saying I produce reams of boilerplate like it's a good thing ;) I meant, and I'm sure you've experience this, that the language doesn't get in the way of realizing the program that's still in my head. Every interruption spent tracking down some language quirk is probably double the time or more to get back into the flow of it. It's really a shame Microsoft doesn't do more to make C# more portable.

voidlogic 13y ago

I agree from the original poster having done a lot of C/C++/Java/C# in the past.

coldtea 13y ago

Yes, he is exaggerating. Go is nowhere near as expressive or productive as C#.