3 ms·
This is both a blessing and a curse for Go. The language touts itself as being easy to pick up, and has a batteries included stdlib. This allows developers to
by jwcrux 11y ago
This is both a blessing and a curse for Go. The language touts itself as being easy to pick up, and has a batteries included stdlib.
This allows developers to quickly say "I know Go. Here's what's wrong with Go." since they believe they have learned all there is to know about it. This is good, since that's part of why Go is approachable.
However, this has downsides. As you showed, there are succinct features that can make the difference between "this is a bad thing" and elegant code.
- 1_player 11y agoShould the language be cryptic and complex for people to take it a little more seriously? OK, it seems I'm trying hard to defend Go. I like it, I seldom (but do) miss generics, I miss some Haskell/Rust features and wish it were a little less simple. But I don't understand why there are dozens of similar "things about Go" articles posted every week on HN, all repeating the same stuff. The one from Evan Miller was both entertaining and in-depth, but that's the exception.
- egwor 11y agoYou're clearly know a lot about this topic. Not everyone else is quite as up to speed and the article was a rather interesting view from a learner's perspective. No one expected it to be perfect, and it was particularly well considered considering the experience and time the author had had. Our comments are ultimately feedback. We're a community and we want constructive feedback to help each other learn. When giving feedback, just remember to be constructive and consider how your tone could be perceived. I'm sure that you had the best intentions but the undertone of the comment read to me (and many others) as very cutting/attacking.