3 ms·
>Therefore, if someone labels something (e.g. Go) as "not object-oriented", that has an implied judgement that Go is somehow "handicapped" and has less power th
by jeremyjh 12y ago
>Therefore, if someone labels something (e.g. Go) as "not object-oriented", that has an implied judgement that Go is somehow "handicapped" and has less power than C++/C#/etc.
But that is precisely the point of Go: it IS less powerful. It has no inheritance, no generics or templates, no macros or pre-processor, no raw pointer access, no exceptions etc. This is all completely intentional, and yes it will be a turn-off to many.
- jasode 12y agoUnderstood. But then people can just shift the argument around to the word "powerful". Unlike electricity where "power" is composed of just 2 dimensions (voltage and current), "power" in a language has hundreds of dimensions. If for one programmer, the "interesting" things in Go include ultra fast compile times, builtin concurrency primitives, network library, etc, then to him, "Go is more powerful than C++." The disagreement over what dimensional components of "powerful" is worth comparing then feeds more debates (and implied judgments of language worthiness).