4 ms·

I think that's perfectly fine, though it's not my cup of tea (and I doubt that empirical evidence would show that Go's particular set of features maximizes "big

by kvb 12y ago

I think that's perfectly fine, though it's not my cup of tea (and I doubt that empirical evidence would show that Go's particular set of features maximizes "big project" maintainability, though such an experiment is sadly impossible to arrange). And I think that the point, "Critics focus on missing features, but Go's philosophy is to be minimal" is definitely valid. But, "Critics focus on how Go is missing shiny new features (that may not even be fully implemented)" is definitely not true (of most critics). Most people aren't complaining that Go doesn't support dependent types, or row polymorphism, or cutting edge technologies. They're complaining that Go doesn't even reflect the state-of-the-art of 30 years ago.

NateDad 12y ago
There are a ton of anti features that have been introduced in the last 30 years. Things that are clever but make your code harder to understand and harder to maintain. Many of these are things people like, but have proven to be somewhere between not useful and a nightmare.
- kvb 12y ago
  I'm not advocating adding every feature introduced in that span, only the ones that are not problematic. As a specific example, what's the downside to disjoint unions? They add minimal complexity while adding a ton of safety. I'm not aware of any argument that they are either not useful or a nightmare - could you point me to one?
  - NateDad 12y ago
    So, by disjoint unions, I'm going to assume you mean sum types, like a value that can be either a pointer or an error, but never both, and you use special keywords to access one or the other. Sure, that's really useful - you guarantee that you can never access the unset half of the value. But it adds a lot of complexity, too. You need a way to declare values of this type - this means more keywords and/or more special syntax. You need a way to then access both halves of the values, so now you have to add pattern matching... that's actually a lot of complexity to add to a language that only has 25 keywords. All that, instead of just doing what Go already does, which is to return two values and just have a convention of checking the error before the value... which works really well 99% of the time, and doesn't require all the rest of that complexity.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
grey-area 12y ago
They're complaining that Go doesn't even reflect the state-of-the-art of 30 years ago. Clearly that was a very deliberate choice on the part of the Go creators, not the result of oversight or ignorance. I suspect they simply didn't want to reflect the state of the art 30 years ago, 20 years ago, or today. I don't find that at all surprising, because people who want to get things done often like very simple tools which stay out of the way. To each their own though, and I'm sure the go creators would be very happy to see other languages used instead of go by those who prefer more features, more complexity, state of the art from 30 years ago, etc. I do find myself puzzled by the hostility it generates though - it is just a language, one of many, and about which some very ordinary claims are being made (easy to learn etc).

by kvb 12y ago

NateDad 12y ago

There are a ton of anti features that have been introduced in the last 30 years. Things that are clever but make your code harder to understand and harder to maintain. Many of these are things people like, but have proven to be somewhere between not useful and a nightmare.

kvb 12y ago
I'm not advocating adding every feature introduced in that span, only the ones that are not problematic. As a specific example, what's the downside to disjoint unions? They add minimal complexity while adding a ton of safety. I'm not aware of any argument that they are either not useful or a nightmare - could you point me to one?
- NateDad 12y ago
  So, by disjoint unions, I'm going to assume you mean sum types, like a value that can be either a pointer or an error, but never both, and you use special keywords to access one or the other. Sure, that's really useful - you guarantee that you can never access the unset half of the value. But it adds a lot of complexity, too. You need a way to declare values of this type - this means more keywords and/or more special syntax. You need a way to then access both halves of the values, so now you have to add pattern matching... that's actually a lot of complexity to add to a language that only has 25 keywords. All that, instead of just doing what Go already does, which is to return two values and just have a convention of checking the error before the value... which works really well 99% of the time, and doesn't require all the rest of that complexity.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

grey-area 12y ago

They're complaining that Go doesn't even reflect the state-of-the-art of 30 years ago. Clearly that was a very deliberate choice on the part of the Go creators, not the result of oversight or ignorance. I suspect they simply didn't want to reflect the state of the art 30 years ago, 20 years ago, or today. I don't find that at all surprising, because people who want to get things done often like very simple tools which stay out of the way. To each their own though, and I'm sure the go creators would be very happy to see other languages used instead of go by those who prefer more features, more complexity, state of the art from 30 years ago, etc. I do find myself puzzled by the hostility it generates though - it is just a language, one of many, and about which some very ordinary claims are being made (easy to learn etc).