4 ms·
I'll come right out and say that I despise Go. It's a terrible language that ignores decades of language research and brings nothing new to the field, but has b
by copsarebastards 12y ago
I'll come right out and say that I despise Go. It's a terrible language that ignores decades of language research and brings nothing new to the field, but has become popular due to Google hype.
That said, Go -> Racket is a pretty big jump. Even though I think Go is terrible, I can at least take the time to see the problems it's solving and offer comparable languages. I suggest Rust as a Go replacement.
Don't get me wrong, Racket is pretty good. It's not the Lisp I would pick (I really like Gambit Scheme) but it's at least a Lisp. But a high-level language like Racket isn't really comparable to Go. They're just in different spaces.
- kibwen 12y agoRust's and Go's strengths are very dissimilar, there's no reason to consider one as the replacement for the other without considering a dozen other worthy languages in between.
- copsarebastards 12y agoSure, if you make vague enough statements, they're hard to disprove, which might lead you to believe that what you said is correct even though you haven't made a provable or disprovable claim. There are plenty of problems where one might consider using Go or Rust. The same cannot be said of Go and Racket, or Rust and Racket. I wouldn't consider using Racket for a situation where I need high performance or low memory usage--the numbers just don't work. Likewise I wouldn't look at Go or Rust for building a data-presentation type webapp.