4 ms·
As I said, I've seen people say "it's the same". It is not the same. Saying "supports higher level and lower level" programming when you don't actually suppor
by jacques_chester 12y ago
As I said, I've seen people say "it's the same".
It is not the same.
Saying "supports higher level and lower level" programming when you don't actually support most higher level programming primitives is also, from my point of view, untrue.
Go's design choices are what they are, which is fine. But I just see a lot of people who argue, in all seriousness, that a loop has the same level of abstraction as map, filter etc. It simply doesn't.
- NateDad 12y agoI can put the loop a function if you want a nice compact version with a friendly name. Not sure what level of abstraction you're missing.
- jacques_chester 12y agoI can label a GOTO as well. That languages are turing equivalent doesn't mean that they operate at the same level of abstraction; trying to pass one off as being "the same" as another is just silly.