4 ms·

I don't know what your definition of "amazing" language is, then, but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...w

I don't know what your definition of "amazing" language is, then, but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...well...pretty darn "amazing" in my book. It maybe doesn't tickle me on an intellectual level, the way Haskell or Clojure do, sure, but for getting real work done, I'd choose it any day over those two. Other "exciting" languages that play in the same field as Go are perhaps Rust and D, but neither of those have the same corporate/community support, tools, eco-system, etc.

wyager 13y ago
>but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...well...pretty darn "amazing" in my book. This also describes Java in 1997. I wouldn't call that an amazing language either. >Other "exciting" languages that play in the same field as Go are perhaps Rust and D, but neither of those have the same corporate/community support, tools, eco-system, etc. I don't know enough about D to speak about it, but at least Rust has a good type system (based on hindley-milner), support for generic programming, pattern matching, extensibility, etc. I'd personally call Rust "well-designed".
- renox 12y ago
  >This also describes Java in 1997. I wouldn't call that an amazing language either. You're joking right? I've used Java around 1998 and its standard library wasn't good, "java can't print" was quite true back then..
disputin 13y ago
"It maybe doesn't tickle me on an intellectual level, the way Haskell or Clojure do, sure, but for getting real work done, I'd choose it any day over those two." Agreed. I'd suggest perfect for the world's dark matter devs.
Dewie 13y ago
> I don't know what your definition of "amazing" language is, then, but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...well...pretty darn "amazing" in my book. That's amazing tooling, something which can be had even if the language itself is just decent. I'm not trying to be pedantic; I think the distinction matters.
markc 13y ago
I find Clojure to be a very pragmatic language that excels at getting real work done and also happens to be interesting intellectually. On the other hand, your ability to quickly get stuff done in Clojure depends on a fairly radical change in your approach problem solving (functionally, and without mutation). Until that happens most people will find golang a much simpler, more intuitive language.

wyager 13y ago

>but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...well...pretty darn "amazing" in my book. This also describes Java in 1997. I wouldn't call that an amazing language either. >Other "exciting" languages that play in the same field as Go are perhaps Rust and D, but neither of those have the same corporate/community support, tools, eco-system, etc. I don't know enough about D to speak about it, but at least Rust has a good type system (based on hindley-milner), support for generic programming, pattern matching, extensibility, etc. I'd personally call Rust "well-designed".

renox 12y ago
>This also describes Java in 1997. I wouldn't call that an amazing language either. You're joking right? I've used Java around 1998 and its standard library wasn't good, "java can't print" was quite true back then..

disputin 13y ago

"It maybe doesn't tickle me on an intellectual level, the way Haskell or Clojure do, sure, but for getting real work done, I'd choose it any day over those two." Agreed. I'd suggest perfect for the world's dark matter devs.

Dewie 13y ago

> I don't know what your definition of "amazing" language is, then, but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...well...pretty darn "amazing" in my book. That's amazing tooling, something which can be had even if the language itself is just decent. I'm not trying to be pedantic; I think the distinction matters.

markc 13y ago

I find Clojure to be a very pragmatic language that excels at getting real work done and also happens to be interesting intellectually. On the other hand, your ability to quickly get stuff done in Clojure depends on a fairly radical change in your approach problem solving (functionally, and without mutation). Until that happens most people will find golang a much simpler, more intuitive language.