3 ms·

Nothing ironic about it. There are very vocal, very passionate people who pile the hate on Go in every single discussion regarding it. The list can usually be s

by personZ 12y ago

Nothing ironic about it. There are very vocal, very passionate people who pile the hate on Go in every single discussion regarding it. The list can usually be summarized as "ways that Go is not Haskell". Which is strange, because a post about Haskell tends to be about Haskell. A post about Go tends to be a lot of people telling everyone how Go is unlike, to its detriment, other languages. Great -- go use those languages. Why people assume that only people NOT using Go are complaining HN doesn't have a large community of commentators, and you get to know the common personalities. There are absolutely people building solutions in Go who might think "it would be nice to have generics", and indeed that's exactly why they've never been discounted or denied by the Go team, simply deferred. But these discussions are dominated not by those people, but instead people telling you why Go is not Rust is not Haskell is not C# is not... What's the point? We have a lot of languages and environments to choose from, and we do. Why are people seemingly threatened by Go? It's bizarre. Generics are nice and they're important, but there are a lot of nice and important attributes to a language, and they have bigger priorities. If generics were critical to my work, I simply wouldn't use Go (and indeed, for some subsections and components, I don't for that reason. Life goes on. Different tools serve different needs).

tome 12y ago
> Why are people seemingly threatened by Go? I don't think anyone's threatened by Go. I think some people are disappointed that Go's designers chose not to add a lot of extra type-related features, including generics, for some extra effort on the part of the language designers but very little cost (and much benefit) to the language users. If this was an unused toy language there would be no problem, but the existence of lots of code written in any language will have a small cost on other developers for social reasons, even if they don't use that language.
- personZ 12y ago
  I don't think anyone's threatened by Go. Yet your final sentence says exactly the opposite, indirectly. As if Go is some sort of scourge that these gallant guardians of language must fight. Further, if you assess the simplicity of adding generics, and it is at odds with the actual people creating the language and tools (among whom are some of the most respected names in this industry), that's a point when you should stop and reassess your own, outsider-looking-in perspective.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    > , and it is at odds with the actual people creating the language and tools (among whom are some of the most respected names in this industry) I hope to one day experience a Go thread with no appeals to authority with regards to the language inventors/implementers.
    - personZ 12y ago
      I hope to one day see a thread with no misplaced logical fallacies.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - Dewie 12y ago
        What are you even trying to say? The appeals to authority are not always used in a fallacious way (like the informal logical fallacy). But I don't personally like it, and I think it is intellectually lazy. It's better to let the product itself stand or fall on its own merit.
        personZ 12y ago
        Your incantation of the logical fallacy is how it often appears in what could best be described as ignorant conversations. The appeal to authority fallacy is if I measured the acidity in a lake over a long term period, and then presented my findings and someone declares that such can't be the case because the Environment Agency says it's fine. They're undermining my objective, demonstrated efforts with a hand waving appeal to someone else. If, on the other hand, I casually and lazily said "I think that there lake is acidic, no matter what anyone tells me", it isn't an appeal to authority to point out what someone who is undoubtedly in a better position thinks and actually knows. In this case someone offhandedly, based upon nothing but the fact that they seem to want it to be true, declared the ease with which the Go team -- you know, the actual people working on it -- could add generics. No fuss, no muss. It isn't an appeal to authority to point out that they are in absolutely no position to make such a claim.
coldtea 12y ago
>Which is strange, because a post about Haskell tends to be about Haskell. A post about Go tends to be a lot of people telling everyone how Go is unlike, to its detriment, other languages. Great -- go use those languages. What you write above shows that HN users don't have the same behavior with other languages indiscriminately... So, doesn't this sound like maybe it's Go that's problematic and not HN user behavior? (see also below) >There are absolutely people building solutions in Go who might think "it would be nice to have generics", and indeed that's exactly why they've never been discounted or denied by the Go team, simply deferred. But these discussions are dominated not by those people, but instead people telling you why Go is not Rust is not Haskell is not C# is not... And why shouldn't they? (Well we) Go has design problems (beside the lack of Generics) the same way PHP has or JS has. And it's criticized in a similar manner as when JS is brought up its type coercion is mentioned, or its global by default scope, its confusing this context, etc. Now you might agree with the above or not. But what you ask is essentially for people that perceive it that way, to not speak, and just let it go. Isn't the whole point of HN discussion (including about languages), criticism etc? It sure is not about celebrating all languages just because they exist...

by personZ 12y ago

tome 12y ago

> Why are people seemingly threatened by Go? I don't think anyone's threatened by Go. I think some people are disappointed that Go's designers chose not to add a lot of extra type-related features, including generics, for some extra effort on the part of the language designers but very little cost (and much benefit) to the language users. If this was an unused toy language there would be no problem, but the existence of lots of code written in any language will have a small cost on other developers for social reasons, even if they don't use that language.

personZ 12y ago
I don't think anyone's threatened by Go. Yet your final sentence says exactly the opposite, indirectly. As if Go is some sort of scourge that these gallant guardians of language must fight. Further, if you assess the simplicity of adding generics, and it is at odds with the actual people creating the language and tools (among whom are some of the most respected names in this industry), that's a point when you should stop and reassess your own, outsider-looking-in perspective.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > , and it is at odds with the actual people creating the language and tools (among whom are some of the most respected names in this industry) I hope to one day experience a Go thread with no appeals to authority with regards to the language inventors/implementers.
  - personZ 12y ago
    I hope to one day see a thread with no misplaced logical fallacies.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dewie 12y ago
      What are you even trying to say? The appeals to authority are not always used in a fallacious way (like the informal logical fallacy). But I don't personally like it, and I think it is intellectually lazy. It's better to let the product itself stand or fall on its own merit.
      - personZ 12y ago
        Your incantation of the logical fallacy is how it often appears in what could best be described as ignorant conversations. The appeal to authority fallacy is if I measured the acidity in a lake over a long term period, and then presented my findings and someone declares that such can't be the case because the Environment Agency says it's fine. They're undermining my objective, demonstrated efforts with a hand waving appeal to someone else. If, on the other hand, I casually and lazily said "I think that there lake is acidic, no matter what anyone tells me", it isn't an appeal to authority to point out what someone who is undoubtedly in a better position thinks and actually knows. In this case someone offhandedly, based upon nothing but the fact that they seem to want it to be true, declared the ease with which the Go team -- you know, the actual people working on it -- could add generics. No fuss, no muss. It isn't an appeal to authority to point out that they are in absolutely no position to make such a claim.

coldtea 12y ago

>Which is strange, because a post about Haskell tends to be about Haskell. A post about Go tends to be a lot of people telling everyone how Go is unlike, to its detriment, other languages. Great -- go use those languages. What you write above shows that HN users don't have the same behavior with other languages indiscriminately... So, doesn't this sound like maybe it's Go that's problematic and not HN user behavior? (see also below) >There are absolutely people building solutions in Go who might think "it would be nice to have generics", and indeed that's exactly why they've never been discounted or denied by the Go team, simply deferred. But these discussions are dominated not by those people, but instead people telling you why Go is not Rust is not Haskell is not C# is not... And why shouldn't they? (Well we) Go has design problems (beside the lack of Generics) the same way PHP has or JS has. And it's criticized in a similar manner as when JS is brought up its type coercion is mentioned, or its global by default scope, its confusing this context, etc. Now you might agree with the above or not. But what you ask is essentially for people that perceive it that way, to not speak, and just let it go. Isn't the whole point of HN discussion (including about languages), criticism etc? It sure is not about celebrating all languages just because they exist...